The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Harlan
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Actual Fun

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Harlan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,258 times Debate No: 5686
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, R1, I give this intro. My opponent gives me a list of several topics, pertaining to a variety of subjects. In R2, I pick the topic. My opponent picks his or her side. If they pick Pro, they go in their R2, and forfeit in R5, if they pick Con, they don't do anything else in R2. R3 and on are normal.
Harlan

Con

Thank you for the challenge. I would like apologize that in our previous debate I was not punctual. Here are my suggested topics (I would be PRO for all of these, but you can rephrase them so that I would be CON, if you see fit):

- Free will does not exist

- Death as a form of punishment by government is wrong

- 9/11 was a govt. inside job

- Morality is an illusion

- Censorship is a poison to society

- For a god to not accept all souls into heaven would be cruel

- Speech should not be regulated by government at all

- Schools should not make students to acknowledge the pledge of allegiance in any form

-Generally speaking, the best way to improve the educational system is not to force a teaching style on the teacher, but to hire a new teacher who will naturally follow that teaching style. (might need to shorten that one)
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Morality is an illusion.
Harlan

Con

What is morality? We see it as something regular and accept it as a given. The concept usually seems un-curious. But let's look at it on a very basic level.

The concept is based on the idea of opposites at its root. It orbits the idea that some things are good, while others are bad. And, in fact, morality does not really go any deeper than this shallow concept. "Good" and "bad" don't really have any meaning that isn't completely superficial and imagined. All "good" is, is the opposite of "bad" and vice versa. But what IS good…what IS bad? ...

Not only do good and bad only have meaning in being the opposite of each other, there is really no fundamental difference in their concepts, since each concept is essentially being the opposite of the other. This assertion may seem odd to some, who will without a doubt in their mind lay out to me what is "good" and what is "bad". But how are these defined? A man might tell me that consuming the flesh of a gorilla is wrong, but also tell me that recreational sex is wrong. But what fundamental connection is their between monkey-eating and birth control? …NONE.

The only thing that defines what the rules of morality are, is a bunch of things called Homo sapiens, that live on a inconceivably small dot of existence called "earth". A visiting alien that might come would be perplexed by the way these monkeys are irrationally opposed to certain ideas.

And since all morality is, is a superficial perception of humans, it is therefore an illusion.

For morality to have substance in any form exempt the human thoughts there must be some sort of universal, unseen entity such as a god which would decide what is moral and immoral. This is referred to as a god, and this concept does not have any sort of steady ground or basis. Therefore, it would be best to exclude this concept from the debate.

The other way for morality to exist is if there was such a thing as a goal. There are no goals beyond animal minds, however, and therefore could be defined as an illusion. If there were some sort of fundamental goal or purpose to the dead physical matter of the world, than morality could exist, but this would imply a god, and should therefore be dismissed.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Here's my Neg case:

If morality is an illusion, where does that take us?
For example, Hitler did nothing wrong, as there is no right or wrong...
I can run over school children with my car, and hell, don't blame me, there's no such thing as right or wrong...
You can't run society without morality. At its core, morality is the way we must act in order to survive, as an individual, and as a species. If morality is just some illusion, we cannot have an orderly society, we won't live.

Furthermore, morality is an abstract concept, that is, it isn't based off of perceptions, only logic. You might say "No! It's based off instincts, and a 'superficial perception,'" but, you are wrong. Morality is like math, our logic leads to its conclusions. For example, Kant used nothing but logic to show that his system of morality was the way to go. (He made one small fallacy, but nonetheless, he still based it off of logic.) J.S. Mill also used logic (also with a fallacy) to prove that his form of utilitarianism is correct. It's logic.

Rebuttals:

"Not only do good and bad only have meaning in being the opposite of each other, there is really no fundamental difference in their concepts, since each concept is essentially being the opposite of the other. This assertion may seem odd to some, who will without a doubt in their mind lay out to me what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. But how are these defined? A man might tell me that consuming the flesh of a gorilla is wrong, but also tell me that recreational sex is wrong. But what fundamental connection is their [sic.] between monkey-eating and birth control? …NONE."

Well, that man has one dumb moral system, and is probably really ignorant. I'm guessing that man may also tell you that man made global warming is real, because it was warm today, and that the sun orbits the earth (20% of adult Americans would agree with him) because you can see it move in the sky. Does that mean that science is false? No! And also, with your opposites ideas, well think about this. All true and false are are opposites. Does that mean they are an illusion too?

"The only thing that defines what the rules of morality are, is a bunch of things called Homo sapiens, that live on a inconceivably small dot of existence called 'earth'. A visiting alien that might come would be perplexed by the way these monkeys are irrationally opposed to certain ideas."

Although a visiting alien is probably impossible (if one subscribes to the physics of Mr. Einstein), the only irrational oppositions to certain ideas are from those monkeys that don't understand logic, and flinch at even the simplest modus tollens.

"And since all morality is, is a superficial perception of humans, it is therefore an illusion."

Only to those of us too ignorant to think about ethics.

"For morality to have substance in any form exempt the human thoughts there must be some sort of universal, unseen entity such as a god which would decide what is moral and immoral. This is referred to as a god, and this concept does not have any sort of steady ground or basis. Therefore, it would be best to exclude this concept from the debate."

That would also mean that math, science, and modern philosophy also are meaningless. I won't make this a pointless debate about theism and atheism as well.

"The other way for morality to exist is if there was such a thing as a goal. There are no goals beyond animal minds, however, and therefore could be defined as an illusion. If there were some sort of fundamental goal or purpose to the dead physical matter of the world, than morality could exist, but this would imply a god, and should therefore be dismissed."

Ever read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason? If not do so, for he will surely change your mind.
Harlan

Con

Since I have already laid out the foundation of my argument in the opening round, I will go straight to rebuttals…

"if morality is an illusion, where does that take us?
For example, Hitler did nothing wrong, as there is no right or wrong...
I can run over school children with my car, and hell, don't blame me, there's no such thing as right or wrong..."

This is uncalled for. The above is not a logical argument, but an emotional one, with which you try to have an emotional appeal. This is a cheap card to play.

You state that it would imply that the examples were immune to morality, but provided absolutely no logic as to why these things actually WERE immoral. You provided no reason why running over school children is immoral.

And as far the Hitler thing goes, I suppose I had better explain how the topic of this debate fits in with my beliefs…

The logical and rational part of my mind recognizes that there is no such thing as morality. I "know" this. I do NOT however "embrace" this idea, because it is impossible for me to do so, since it is a part of my human nature with which I do not wish to part. I think of Hitler's actions as immoral, because that is just the way my mind is programmed, but I am aware of the fact that nothing in this physical world matters.

"You can't run society without morality. At its core, morality is the way we must act in order to survive, as an individual, and as a species. If morality is just some illusion, we cannot have an orderly society, we won't live."

This is true. As humans, it would be best to pretend that morality exists. Heck, I do. Unfortunately for your case though, asserting that it is vital to HUMAN society and the HUMAN race, does not come to the conclusion that morality is more than an illusion. Something being necessary to a society does not mean it is not an illusion. You are diverging from the topic.

In fact, my opponent only providing examples pertaining to humans, only goes to prove my point that morality is merely the product of the human mind. My opponent has only furthered the point that morality is an illusion.

"Furthermore, morality is an abstract concept, that is, it isn't based off of perceptions, only logic. You might say "No! It's based off instincts, and a 'superficial perception,'" but, you are wrong. Morality is like math, our logic leads to its conclusions. For example, Kant used nothing but logic to show that his system of morality was the way to go. (He made one small fallacy, but nonetheless, he still based it off of logic.) J.S. Mill also used logic (also with a fallacy) to prove that his form of utilitarianism is correct. It's logic."

This is an interesting assertion, but one with no accompanying evidence, and must therefore be disregarded. I am un-familiar with the people mentioned, and I am not inclined to look them up, because I need not to do my opponents research.

The statement that morality is based off of logic is an empty one if you neglect to provide this logic. Mind you, giving the names of those who DO have the logic is no substitute. Unless you can actually show us the logic, this point does nothing to strengthen your argument.

"Well, that man has one dumb moral system, and is probably really ignorant. I'm guessing that man may also tell you that man made global warming is real, because it was warm today, and that the sun orbits the earth (20% of adult Americans would agree with him) because you can see it move in the sky."

But what makes his moral system wrong and yours right? Who gets to decide? Humans do…and it is therefore an illusion. Since you have chosen to ignore my point, and instead complain about the moral rules I chose (they were merely examples), I will use examples of moral beliefs from YOUR profile…

On your profile, you are against both abortion and police profiling. What possible connection is there between these two things?

"And also, with your opposites ideas, well think about this. All true and false are are opposites. Does that mean they are an illusion too?"

Yes, it does mean that. They refer to pieces of information, which can only be stored in brains (including electric brains…I'm using the term loosely), and is therefore an illusion. There is no such thing as incorrect, if there is no thing to imagine something that is incorrect, in the physical world nothing is incorrect, because that refers to information, and there is no information, only results. Truth and false are merely descriptors to hypothetical, not actual, events.

"Although a visiting alien is probably impossible (if one subscribes to the physics of Mr. Einstein)"

Irrelevant.

"the only irrational oppositions to certain ideas are from those monkeys that don't understand logic, and flinch at even the simplest modus tollens."

What I was describing was morality. You imply that true morality is the result of logic, yet do not provide even the slightest hint to what this logic is. I am inclined to believe that you might not actually have a grasp of your alleged logic which you swear exists.

"Only to those of us too ignorant to think about ethics."

My opponent has now made the endlessly confusing assertion that people who are "too ignorant" to think about ethics, have the false illusion that morality does exist. Would you please elaborate on how people who don't think about ethics have the illusion it exists?

"That would also mean that math, science, and modern philosophy also are meaningless. I won't make this a pointless debate about theism and atheism as well."

Even if you believe there is very little, there are some reasons to agree with science, and what not. My point was that a debate based on blind faith is utterly without logic.

"Ever read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason? If not do so, for he will surely change your mind."

I have not. The above is not an argument, but a reference to someone else who DOES have an argument. This does not serve as evidence to his case.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"This is uncalled for. The above is not a logical argument, but an emotional one, with which you try to have an emotional appeal. This is a cheap card to play."

It isn't exactly an emotional card. It's a demonstration of the absurdities which result if morality is an illusion. I am pointing out that things that are called wrong by almost every human in the world wouldn't be considered wrong.

"This is true. As humans, it would be best to pretend that morality exists. Heck, I do. Unfortunately for your case though, asserting that it is vital to HUMAN society and the HUMAN race, does not come to the conclusion that morality is more than an illusion. Something being necessary to a society does not mean it is not an illusion. You are diverging from the topic."

I disagree. It's not an illusion, it may come from less lofty sources, but it isn't an illusion. Take Nietzche's example in Human all too Human, the tribal big men created morality. It isn't from God or anything, but it isn't an illusion.

"In fact, my opponent only providing examples pertaining to humans, only goes to prove my point that morality is merely the product of the human mind. My opponent has only furthered the point that morality is an illusion."

Not really. Morality can only apply to beings that can know the difference between right and wrong. Insects can't, people can. Therefore, people are the only real users of morality known to man.

"This is an interesting assertion, but one with no accompanying evidence, and must therefore be disregarded. I am un-familiar with the people mentioned, and I am not inclined to look them up, because I need not to do my opponents research."

Kant
1. Moral rules cannot be hypothetical, because that impinges on moral autonomy, and the will of a rational being.
2. Therefore they must be categorical.
3. Consequences cannot determine morality, as they are not necessarily the product of a rational being.
4. Therefore inclinations determine morality.
5. Rules that lead to contradictions cannot exist.
6. Moral rules cannot lead to contradictions.
7. Therefore, we must use this principle: "Act in such a manner that thy maxim can be made a universal law of nature" in order to prevent contradictions.

Pure logic.

Mill
1. Happiness is the only desirable thing (It's the only thing that can be desired, at least as a final end)
2. Therefore, morality must seek to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness.

Pure logic.

"But what makes his moral system wrong and yours right? Who gets to decide? Humans do…and it is therefore an illusion. Since you have chosen to ignore my point, and instead complain about the moral rules I chose (they were merely examples), I will use examples of moral beliefs from YOUR profile…'

His is irrational. Mine has at least some basis in logic, I would hope.

"On your profile, you are against both abortion and police profiling. What possible connection is there between these two things?"

My litmus test is this "If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral" Abortion deprives future humans of their right to life, and police profiling deprives citizens with an ethnic background of their rights to fairness. The connection is that they both infringe on rights.

"Yes, it does mean that. They refer to pieces of information, which can only be stored in brains (including electric brains…I'm using the term loosely), and is therefore an illusion. There is no such thing as incorrect, if there is no thing to imagine something that is incorrect, in the physical world nothing is incorrect, because that refers to information, and there is no information, only results. Truth and false are merely descriptors to hypothetical, not actual, events.'Yes, it does mean that. They refer to pieces of information, which can only be stored in brains (including electric brains…I'm using the term loosely), and is therefore an illusion. There is no such thing as incorrect, if there is no thing to imagine something that is incorrect, in the physical world nothing is incorrect, because that refers to information, and there is no information, only results. Truth and false are merely descriptors to hypothetical, not actual, events."

I think you are misunderstanding me. If I say "Is it true that you go on to debate.org?" You would say it is not true, because there is no true or false. I can imagine you not going on debate.org, but you do go on nonetheless.

"What I was describing was morality. You imply that true morality is the result of logic, yet do not provide even the slightest hint to what this logic is. I am inclined to believe that you might not actually have a grasp of your alleged logic which you swear exists."

I provided logic.

"My opponent has now made the endlessly confusing assertion that people who are 'too ignorant' to think about ethics, have the false illusion that morality does exist. Would you please elaborate on how people who don't think about ethics have the illusion it exists?"

Sorry for the confusion. Okay, the average Bible-thumper says, "God hates gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research" so he doesn't support gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research. That's not logic, that's stupidity.

"Even if you believe there is very little, there are some reasons to agree with science, and what not. My point was that a debate based on blind faith is utterly without logic."

Morality is based on logic, science is based on logic and empiricism, math is based on logic.

"I have not. The above is not an argument, but a reference to someone else who DOES have an argument. This does not serve as evidence to his case."

Well, still read it, but I provided the logic above. Sorry for not actually showing it, but I really didn't feel like it at the time.
Harlan

Con

As agreed in the opening of the debate, this shall be my final argument. I am obliged to not post anything in round 5.

I will give my rebuttals.

"It isn't exactly an emotional card. It's a demonstration of the absurdities which result if morality is an illusion. I am pointing out that things that are called wrong by almost every human in the world wouldn't be considered wrong."

Unless you are using mob mentality to form your beliefs, I fail to see how large numbers of people disagreeing with something make it absurd or illogical. This would actually fit in with it being an illusion. It just so happens that most such people have this illusion, because morality is a part of what it means to be human. It's how most human's brains are programmed.

"disagree. It's not an illusion, it may come from less lofty sources, but it isn't an illusion. Take Nietzche's [Sic.] example in Human all too Human, the tribal big men created morality. It isn't from God or anything, but it isn't an illusion."

I am assuming that by "less lofty sources" you mean to say "human brains", which would imply that it was an illusion, which would contradict your stance. If the brain is the source of morality, than it is quite verifiably an illusion.

You specifically stated that "tribal big men" created morality. I am assuming that these "tribal big men" were humans, which would mean that morality was an invention of humans, and therefore an illusion.

It is becoming evident that we might actually agree on this, since you seem to be arguing the same thing as me.

"Not really. Morality can only apply to beings that can know the difference between right and wrong. Insects can't, people can. Therefore, people are the only real users of morality known to man."

By "other users" I assume that you do not speak of the cold, dead physical matter of the natural universe, but minds. The only thing to acknowledge morality is minds, and therefore it is an illusion.

"Kant
1. Moral rules cannot be hypothetical, because that impinges on moral autonomy, and the will of a rational being.
2. Therefore they must be categorical.
3. Consequences cannot determine morality, as they are not necessarily the product of a rational being.
4. Therefore inclinations determine morality.
5. Rules that lead to contradictions cannot exist.
6. Moral rules cannot lead to contradictions.
7. Therefore, we must use this principle: "Act in such a manner that thy maxim can be made a universal law of nature" in order to prevent contradictions."

The argument above does not come to the conclusion, you might notice, that morality is more than an illusion. It comes to the conclusion that we should "act in such a manner" that it existed. This is an argument of why we should act like morality exists; one that I thoroughly agree with. It is not an argument that pertains to the topic at hand, however. It is outside the range of this debate.

"Mill
1. Happiness is the only desirable thing (It's the only thing that can be desired, at least as a final end)
2. Therefore, morality must seek to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness."

Once more, happiness is merely the term applied to a certain state of the chemicals in your head. Happiness is something that can only exist in the mind. Therefore, if morality is an element of happiness, than it is an illusion.

"My litmus test is this "If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral""

Yes, but who determines what the "universal law of nature" is? The whole point of the question I put forth is to define that vague idea. What exactly IS the universal thing that connects these things via its rules?

"I think you are misunderstanding me. If I say "Is it true that you go on to debate.org?" You would say it is not true, because there is no true or false. I can imagine you not going on debate.org, but you do go on nonetheless."

You state above that you can "imagine" the false event. But can the false event occur in any way exempt imagination? No. Your imagination is within your head, and therefore the concept of "false" is an illusion.

Oh yeah, and you quoted that section of my argument twice, you know. But thanks, it makes it look like I typed a really long body of text.

"I provided logic."

You provided logic not pertaining to this debate.

"Sorry for the confusion. Okay, the average Bible-thumper says, "God hates gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research" so he doesn't support gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research. That's not logic, that's stupidity."

Stupidity, is it? Well, why don't we use your litmus test…

"If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral"

The bible-thumper believes that gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research, are actions that infringe on the universal law of nature (they refer to it as god). It completely follows your litmus test. Therefore, if their morality is stupid, than your litmus test is stupid.

To re-iterate…

-There is no god or universal connection, and therefore morality cannot exist

-Dead, physical matter does not have goal nor purpose, and all things in the world, even our brains are dead matter, therefore morality cannot exist.

-Morality does not exist outside the imagination of the human brain, and therefore, by the definition of illusion, it is an illusion.

My opponent seems to have misunderstood the resolution, and as a result, has not arguments as to why morality is not an illusion, but arguments as to why we should pretend it exists. I agree that we should pretend this exists, and therefore this has not been so much an argument as me trying in vain to explain to my opponent what the debate is about, and that he is preaching to the quire, so to speak.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 4
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"Unless you are using mob mentality to form your beliefs, I fail to see how large numbers of people disagreeing with something make it absurd or illogical. This would actually fit in with it being an illusion. It just so happens that most such people have this illusion, because morality is a part of what it means to be human. It's how most human's brains are programmed."

Let's forget that part of the argument, I'll concede it to you. It was one sentence.

"I am assuming that by 'less lofty sources' you mean to say 'human brains', which would imply that it was an illusion, which would contradict your stance. If the brain is the source of morality, than it is quite verifiably [sic.] an illusion."

No, I'm saying that I would allow that morality could have come about as a sort of reinforced behavior, that developed. It isn't an illusion, it's an evolutionarily sound practice. If you mean illusion in that it didn't come from the divine, sure, but that's an abusive way to debate, because it becomes a debate about the existence of the divine.

"You specifically stated that 'tribal big men' created morality. I am assuming that these 'tribal big men' were humans, which would mean that morality was an invention of humans, and therefore an illusion."

Okay, sorry that you misunderstood me. The tribal big men treated people based on how they acted. The people who acted in a manner that pissed off the big men died, and their practices began to be considered wrong, and immoral. It is an evolved practice, in the situation I allowed.

"By 'other users' I assume that you do not speak of the cold, dead physical matter of the natural universe, but minds. The only thing to acknowledge morality is minds, and therefore it is an illusion."

No. Just because something exists solely within the mind does not mean it is an illusion. For example, language, like morality, is a product of the mind. However, it has a presence in reality, and it effects reality. Morality does the same. Neither are illusions.

"The argument above does not come to the conclusion, you might notice, that morality is more than an illusion. It comes to the conclusion that we should 'act in such a manner' that it existed. This is an argument of why we should act like morality exists; one that I thoroughly agree with. It is not an argument that pertains to the topic at hand, however. It is outside the range of this debate."

Okay, this debate would be a lot easier if you actually read Kant. Kant said that the way we determine whether something can be a moral law is by using the litmus test, that is, if it was a law, would it lead to a contradiction. For example, stealing cannot become a universal law, because the maxim for stealing "If I steal I will get some sort of gain." will lead to a contradiction of the will if it is made a moral law, because whatever you gained will be stolen by someone else.

"Once more, happiness is merely the term applied to a certain state of the chemicals in your head. Happiness is something that can only exist in the mind. Therefore, if morality is an element of happiness, than it is an illusion."

No, you obviously haven't read "Utilitarianism." Mill says a moral action is one that produces happiness, for you, me, and my cousin. The action that does this is moral. Morality isn't an element of happiness. Morality is simply the act of producing happiness and reducing pain for society.

"Yes, but who determines what the 'universal law of nature' is? The whole point of the question I put forth is to define that vague idea. What exactly IS the universal thing that connects these things via its rules?"

I told you, if an action can become a universal law, w/o leading to a contradiction, or in my case, w/o violating natural rights, it is a universal law.

"You state above that you can 'imagine' the false event. But can the false event occur in any way exempt imagination? No. Your imagination is within your head, and therefore the concept of 'false' is an illusion."

Okay, I see what you're saying, but again, that doesn't make it an illusion. That simply means that it doesn't really matter.

"You provided logic not pertaining to this debate."

No, you just needed to read the pieces they came from, because you obviously didn't understand.

"The bible-thumper believes that gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research, are actions that infringe on the universal law of nature (they refer to it as god). It completely follows your litmus test. Therefore, if their morality is stupid, than your litmus test is stupid."

Uh...no. That's not my litmus test. My litmus test is "If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral" That's not what happened above.

"-There is no god or universal connection, and therefore morality cannot exist"

Morality doesn't need the divine. It only needs logic.

"-Dead, physical matter does not have goal nor purpose, and all things in the world, even our brains[,] are dead matter, therefore morality cannot exist."

Uhh...morality only needs logic.

"-Morality does not exist outside the imagination of the human brain, and therefore, by the definition of illusion, it is an illusion."

No. Language is a product of our minds, but it is used. Morality is a product of our minds using logic. It exists, just like math, language, and logic.

"My opponent seems to have misunderstood the resolution, and as a result, has not arguments as to why morality is not an illusion, but arguments as to why we should pretend it exists. I agree that we should pretend this exists, and therefore this has not been so much an argument as me trying in vain to explain to my opponent what the debate is about, and that he is preaching to the quire [sic.], so to speak."

My opponent can't understand my basic syllogisms, so obviously, you can't accept his rebuttals, as they are rebutting the wrong thing.
Harlan

Con

As was established upon the opening of this debate, This round shall be left empty on my part, so each person may have an equal number of arguments. I am obliged to let you have the last word. I just died a little inside.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
From What I understand it is a debate where you get your topic half hour(or or an hour) before hand and then have to prepare a case
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Parliament? I no nothing about debate formats, but I got the impression that parliament was pretty unorganized in their discussions. In videos I have seen, there are people cheering, clapping, or booing to what is said. Doesn't look like it is organized debate.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
This is a really fun debate style... Sorta similar to Parliamentary debate I believe(not entirely sure, correct me if I am wrong)
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Well thanks, our sole, anonymous voter. Why is no one else voting on this? It's a good debate.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
"Just because something exists solely within the mind does not mean it is an illusion."

-LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Boo to Kant!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Numquam 8 years ago
Numquam
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03