Debate.org: ExNihilo's Debates

Resolved: the U.S. should intervene to promote democracy

2011-06-25T12:11:08-08:00

(Post Voting Period) This round is for acceptance only. --No semantics, this resolution is about intervention in other countries/nations to promote democracy --Dropped arguments are concessions --No new arguments in last round unless they are in response to arguments made in the prior round --PRO must give reasons why the U.S. should promote democracy --CON should give reasons why the U.S. should not Simple

The Federal Government should permit the sale of human organs for transplantation

2011-06-08T19:45:12-08:00

(Post Voting Period) First round is for acceptance Please: No semantics Dropped arguments are to be considered concessions No new argument in last round unless its in response to a new point in the previous round PRO Burden is to give reasons the federal government should change the status quo and allow for the sale of human organs for the purposes of organ transplantation. The CON burden is to give reasons why enacting this change should not happen. Pretty simple.

Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound

2011-04-07T22:16:19-08:00

(Voting Period) Framework: In order to show that the Ontological Argument is not sound, the CON must show that one of the premises of the argument is untrue. If all of the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion follows with necessity as it is a deductive argument. Observation One: 'Possible Worlds' are descriptions of reality. They are ways the world could have been but is not actually. For example, fairies do not actually exist, but there is some possible world in which fairies do exist. If something is possible, then it exists in some possible world. Observation Two: A Maximally Great Being (MGB) is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and that exists in every logically possible world (necessary existence). Since an MGB is a being "than which no greater being can be concieved," it must have the property of necessity since to exist in only some possible worlds would not be maximally great, that is, one can conceive of a greater being; na

The KCA is sound

2011-07-25T10:52:12-08:00

(Voting Period)

I would like to challenge ExNihilo on a debate regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument as supported by William Lane Craig which in my experience the opponent does support.

The KCA:
A.Whatever begins to exist has cause
B. The universe began to exit
C. .'. the universe has a cause.

If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

2011-06-19T21:04:26-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Resolution

If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

Burden of Proof

Pro will affirm the resolution
Con will oppose the resolution

Debate details

4 Rounds
8,000 Character limit
72 Hours to respond
1 Month voting period

NO VIDEO LINKS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.
-------------------------------------------------

God exists in a non-intelligent entity

2011-05-23T16:19:02-08:00

(Voting Period) This debate is about how I belive that God can exist, but not as an intelligent* being. I believe that this is true because most religions believe that God is the creator, and science believs that the big bang is so, but neither have something to create them, which contradicts what we know**. Because of this I have come to rest on the belief God is not a God, or God, but really a force, like gravity. So, anything wrong with is? Con is anything against this, Pro Religion or Anti Religion *By intelligent, I mean it has thoughts, so an animal does have intelligence. **Something cannot exist without something to cause/create it.

The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document

2011-05-29T17:57:37-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Resolved: The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document ==Definitions== 1 U.S. Constitution does indeed refer to none other than the US Constitution. Simple. 2. "living" document: term referring to a philosophy of judicial interpretation of the Constitution that promotes the view that the Constitution is dependent upon the judiciary's opinion of it at a specific time and place in history. This sub-divides into loose interpretation and judicial activism ==Rules== 1. No semantics 2. Drops are concessions 3. Forfeiting will result in a loss of all 7 pts 4. No new arguments can be brought up in the last speech 5. Reciprocal Burden of Proof *This round will be for acceptance. Argumentation will start Rd.2*

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

2011-07-08T22:59:21-08:00

(Voting Period) I would like to challenge ExNihilo on a debate regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument as supported by William Lane Craig which in my experience the opponent does support. The KCA: A.Whatever begins to exist has cause B. The universe began to exit C. .'. the universe has a cause.

There is no God

2011-05-22T16:14:47-08:00

(Voting Period) Burden of Proof: The pro must provide arguments for the proposition. Arguments should lead into the conclusion that there is no supernatural realm, not that there is no evidence for supernaturalism. I must provide evidence and arguments that there is a supernatural realm. Contention One: Kalam Argument Formulated by Dr. Craig: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause P1: This seems true by definition, since its negation is to affirm creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. But nothing, by definition, has no properties, especially causal properties. Therefore something cannot come into being from nothing, or non-being. P2: The universe began to exist a) Actual infinities cannot exist in reality. If the universe did not begin, that means the number of past events is actually infinite. This leads to absurdities. For example, suppose that I have an actually infinite number o