The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Spinozian Pantheism is Sound (Rap Battle)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/16/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 81070
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




All arguments must be made in verse form. BOP is solely on Pro.


I accept.

Let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1


For future reference, a substance is something which can exist
And is basically independent of all other things, like a severed fist
It's like a medium through which other things are conceived
It itself cannot be conceived through anything else, since it's independent, capiche?

Spinozian Pantheism goes like this:
There is one substance that you just can't diss
This substance is all there is
Totally infinite in respect to attributes, gee whiz.

First let me lay down some foundational args
Since they're needed for a project this large
The Principle of Sufficient Reason says simply
That all things have a cause, and this is the key

All things may need a cause to exist is one side
But also that all things that don't exist have causes of nonexistence, is this getting through to your mind?
Therefore that which is not is not for a reason
And this reason must be either inside or outside the thing, no matter the season

Now consider a riddle: how can you tell one child from another?
Surely because they have differences, like the fact that they have different mothers
If there are none of these differences that you have sought
Then surely the number of reasons for calling them different things is naught

Now let's get into the core of this battle
Enough of this preliminary rattle

Imagine a substance which is unlimited in size
It has infinite attributes, and these aren't lies
How could you tell this substance apart from any other one?
That's a trick question: if you could, then the infinite substance would not have an attribute posessed by the other substance, which is a contradiction in terms. Isn't this fun?

So now we know that if an infinite substance exists
It must stand alone, not like a hen with its chicks
There could be nothing outside of itself, not even a rat
Or a single one of the Mafia's many gats

Now let's consider if it's possible for such a substance to not exist
Remember how we know that for it to not exist it must have something keeping it from existing, that's the twist!
If it's true that the substance must always be all by itself
Such a cause of nonexistence can have no source, unlike Donald Trump's wealth!

The only option left is to look for an internal contradiction
But the idea of a "substance" already preassumes existence, isn't that a shocking use of diction!
If a substance contradicts itself internally
Then by defininition a substance it could never be.

So an infinite substance must exist and must be universal
Nothing extending beyond it, neither in spring nor in fall
This substance would be infinitely perfect and all there is
So calling it God would not, in any way, be amiss.

I have given you more than enough reason to vote PRO
You should definitely do it if your ethical code isn't base and low.


The idea is cool, but I found a contradiction,
Where's the room for morality in this fiction?
This particular theory doesn't have a provision
Greatest oversight in philosophical fusion.

Because if god is everything, and everything is god
Then god contradicts himself, no need to applaud
Opposite actions are both considered consistent
So inconsistent actions are somehow consistent?

If I murder a child then I am not in the wrong.
Not even if I do it with a Justin Beiber song.
All actions are taken as part of this god?
So the universe is founded on some sort of fraud?

This idea takes away the logic of nature
From normality, reality, and standard behavior
You cannot ignore it, the problem is major
Forfeit and back off this philosophy, hater.

So when you tell me to look for problems within
I think you overstepped yourself on the win
The problem is apparent, god is not god if contradictory
You probably should've consulted your wictionary
Debate Round No. 2


Your first mistake can be shown quite clearly
You say that contradictions are entailed, and this will cost you dearly
For while Spinoza's theory implies self-interest
That's not the same as whim worship, and you can share that on Pinterest

One must live in harmony with God
Any other belief is just odd
Killing a child is never right
Nor is mugging or starting fights

The reason is that one must be rational
And rationality does not make men factional
If 2+2 really does add up to four
A group of rational men would always agree, now pick your jaw up off the floor

Human nature cannot be denied
Man needs to be rational, else he'll be fried
And since all men share the same nature
Killing another is essentially suicide, to use that nomenclature.

As you can see, rationality lays a good framework
For metaethical theories that stop people from going berserk
My opponent's supposed arguments then flounder
Maybe her parents should just ground her


The poor judgment here cannot be overlooked
Reason is not a good morality book
Reasonable arguments can still disagree
The arguments get uglier than Nanny McPhee

We can raise reasonable points
On all ends of the spectrum
But choosing who's right
Is the biggest problem

I can argue genocide
Is for the greater good
Because the planet is running
On a shortage of food.

But does that make genocide right
Due to utilitarian rhetoric?
Or is it still wrong
Due to deontological ethics?

Even now we prove my argument
By presenting reasonable points
Although we stand in disagreement
Morality is at the toss of a coin.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent starts with the faulty claim that reasonable arguments do not always agree
May I ask how two reasonable people can disagree that the sides of a triangle must equal three?
Likewise, if a rational person finds that murder and theft are wrong
Any hope for a rational rebuttle will soon be gone

A syllogism does not rely on personal preference
A is always A, regardless of your frame of reference
When two arguments seemingly conflict
Check your premisses; one must be a trick

Your examples of ethical conflict leave much to be desired
Is it not so that one side must be right? Your rapping is mired
In the swamp of subjectivism, even though that's what I'm accused of
Only one of teleology and deontology can be rational, and that's a fact, love

Even if we cannot know prima facie what is reasonable
The fact remains that moral systems remain feasible
One can still be moral assuming he's not out of touch with reality
Given this, it is absolutely clear that I have argued my case valiantly.


Jonbonbon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
True story
Posted by ShabShoral 2 years ago
You just couldn't handle my dope rhymes and rhythms.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Lol awesome thanks XD this is probably the most friendly debate I've been in.
Posted by ShabShoral 2 years ago
Spinoza was basically a total egoist, so your objections are valid and relevant!
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Lol I hope I was at least a little right.

I literally just started reading the philosophy and I was like "Oh, so God is basically the universe, and Spinoza doesn't believe any actions are morally right or wrong. I'll run with it." XD
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Thanks, I do like writing my own lines from the depths of my creativity though :P
Posted by ShabShoral 2 years ago
wtf, the font didn't show up like that when I copied it into the thing, lol. This is the word processor I used:

I fully recommend it. It helped inspire some sick rhymes and my amazing flow.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Lol that's hilarious.

Yeah, I got no idea, so let's see.
Posted by ShabShoral 2 years ago
I didn't actually expect that you were going to accept so I didn't exactly plan this far, lol. This is gonna be fun.
Posted by ShabShoral 2 years ago
The chicken finally decides to fight!
No votes have been placed for this debate.