Debate.org: 000ike's Debates

God is a logical impossibility

2012-08-11T11:01:19-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

This is designed to be a quick and straightforward debate.

God: The divine author of all things; the creator of the universe and the laws thereof. An omniscient, and omnipotent being.

At no point can this definition be questioned or altered by either side in the course of this debate.

5000 character limit, Round 1 is for acceptance.

The infinite regress problem exists in objective morality only

2012-09-30T18:12:58-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Resolution clarification: When attempting to justify objective moral statements one provides reasons in order to satisfy the necessity for warrant. However, those reasons themselves require reasons, and as do those reasons, continuing ad infinitum. This isn't just an infinite regress, but it becomes a vicious infinite regress. Con will argue that this problem is not unique to objective morality, it exists for subjective moral statements as well. I will argue that this problem does not exist under subjective morality.

The following will be the canonical definitions which are not subject to dispute or alteration in the course of our argumentation, and my oppnent consents to these terms through accepting this debate.

Subjective statement: A statement that only applies or purports to apply to a given being(s) in and of itself

Objective statement: A sta

Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans

2012-01-29T23:52:10-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

In accepting the debate, Pro agrees to the following parameters and definitions.

Inherently: Occurring from birth; within the very genetics of the group.

Round 1: Introduction of the Affirmative Case (by Pro)
Round 2: Rebuttals and arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments on either side)

No semantics.

My opponent insists on receiving the final word, so contrary to the common debate structure, Pro will begin his argument in Round 1 and I will refute it in the following round and so on and so forth.

Without further ado, I await an honest, good willed, and challenging debate and wish my opponent good luck.

Human beings have free will

2012-04-19T16:01:45-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

By accepting, Con agrees to the following definition of free will, and will at no point, contradict, dispute, or reject it.

Free will: "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)

Round 1 is for acceptance only.

I am completely honored and grateful to debate popculturepooka on this subject, and look forward to an extremely challenging debate.

No one deserves to go to Hell

2012-02-05T16:30:42-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

The full resolution is as it reads, no one deserves to go to hell,..not even Hitler.

Burden of Proof:

Pro is to affirming, using Logic and Reasoning, that no one deserves to go to hell.

Con is to prove, using Logic and Reasoning, that people can deserve to go to hell. This means that citing scripture can be used as evidence, but is not proof. If the Bible says some people should go to hell, pointing that out does not actually prove this action is logical, fair, or justified.

By Accepting this debate, you agree to the following:

1. Hell is merely the name we give to the concept of unending transcendent punishment after death.

2. The soul exi

The Basis of Discourse Ethics is sound

2012-07-02T11:35:19-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

This is the basis in question:

P1: Justifying irrational actions forms a performative contradiction

P2: Therefore, irrational actions are always unjustified

P3: Unjustified actions are unethical actions

C: Irrational actions are objectively unethical

Semantics are allowed since I believe the error here is a gap in the meaning of justified and ethical. If there is anything my opponent disagrees with in the syllogism he should address it before accepting, and I will amend it.

Round 1 is for acceptance. 3000 character limit. 3 days per round.

Flaws are mostly objective

2012-02-23T17:48:27-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

To avoid any semantics, I offer these 2 definitions as conditions of acceptance.

Flaw: a feature that is regarded as unfavorable

Objective: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions

Round 1 is for acceptance.

The U.S would be better off without the Supreme Court

2012-03-06T20:04:20-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Both Pro and Con have shared burden of proof. Pro will demonstrate that the supreme court is a net harm to the United States. Con will attempt to negate that the Supreme Court is either of no harm, OR is a net benefit to the United States.

Round 1 is for acceptance.

Man probably has freewill

2012-07-02T16:37:18-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Determinism: Given entirely identical preceding conditions, nothing else could happen. (1)

Free will: The inverse of determinism. Given entirely identical preceding conditions, something else could happen. Also, the ability to make choices free of constraints. (2)

The first round is for acceptance. No semantics.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Vanilla ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the Beat for Queen"s (Under presure)

2011-08-07T12:10:54-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Vanilla Ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the beat from Queen's (Under Preasure)

I will not Contradict myself

2011-09-25T17:03:13-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

1. PRO reserves the right not to provide an opinion to a question, but he must respond to it. Pro will only use this power in circular questions.

2. Nothing outside of the text of this debate can be subject to contradiction.

3. Con will ask questions for rounds 1 and 2. Round 3 is for conclusions.

Obama deserved the Nobel Prize

2011-09-08T16:43:17-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Full Resolution: Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009.

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 4: Rebuttals only

Standard debate rules apply.

Noah's Flood Is An Actual, Historic Event

2011-08-30T20:55:40-08:00

(Post Voting Period) DEFINITION Noah's Flood: An "event" in history that was a world wide flood. Historical event: An event that actually happened. BURDEN OF PROOF It is my burden to show how a world wide flood like Noah would be impossible and historically unlikely. My opponent needs to prove it happened and it occurred. 8000 characters 1 month voting period 3 days to argue NO semantics. No video links. Round 1 is just for acceptance.

If a tree falls down, and no one hears it...

2012-07-09T14:26:50-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Full Resolution: If a tree falls down and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

This is mostly for fun, and doesn't need to be heavily sourced. Con will argue that the tree makes no sound. Pro will argue that it does.

2,000 character limit. Round 1 is for acceptance

I will not contradict myself (part 2)

2011-10-05T18:01:01-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Continuation of the debate Ike and I just finished. This time I shall come under scrutiny. Exact same setup and rules as before:

1. Pro reserves the right not to provide an opinion to a question, but he must respond to it. Pro will only use this power in circular questions.

2. Nothing outside of the text of this debate can be subject to contradiction.

3. Con will ask questions for rounds 1 and 2. Round 3 is for conclusions.

If Anti-X = Anti-Y, then X=Y

2011-10-02T14:29:53-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

If anti-X = anti-Y, then X=Y

This is true because there is an "=" in between. Being Anti-X MEANS that we are also Anti-Y, so X must be equal to Y.

Lets say X = 16

-16 = -Y

negatives cancel out

16 = Y

X = Y

Lets use words.

X = Obama, Y= stupidity

Anti-Obama = Anti-Stupidity

cancel out the negatives

Obama = Stupidity

My opponent must prove this false.

The DDO debating system is fair

2011-08-16T11:31:52-08:00

(Voting Period)

There are 2 other debates that Truthseeker has instigated on this topic. This one, he contends, such that the voting results can further shed light on the credibility of his claim.

FULL RESOLUTION: The debate system (of DDO) allowing the contender to have the last word, is fair.

Round 1: acceptance
Round 4: Rebuttals only (as usual)

Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

2011-08-04T19:44:18-08:00

(Voting Period)

Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted-Suicide should be universally legalized in the United States.

Definition
Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS): The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. [1]

[1] http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32841

"Rules"
First round is for acceptance only.
Last round is for rebuttals/cloing statements only.
Obvious other things (no ad hom, etc)

If you have any questions or clarifi

Categorical Imperatives do not exist

2012-03-14T20:12:44-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Considering the narrow scope of the resolution, I have limited the debate to 2 rounds of argument and 3,000 characters maximum per round. I will prove that Kant's categorical imperative is a preposterous invention and all imperatives are hypothetical. Whereas, Con will attempt to prove that the categorical imperative exists.

Categorical Imperative: an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both required and justified as an end in itself (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Categorical_Imperative ) - essentially a reason-less obligation.

Round 1 is for acceptance

Funny Video Debate

2012-01-07T16:42:20-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Rules:
The debate is to be subjectively judged on the comedic value of the videos.
The video's length must be less than 5 minutes.
You have 5 minutes to post for each round.

Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.

Let the game begin!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKM1UD4ZPTg