http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&member=TheSkeptic Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2013-05-21T07:12:40-08:00 2013-05-21T07:12:40-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-reasonable-to-believe-that-the-Resurrection-of-Jesus-is-a-historical-event/1/ (Post Voting Period) I contend that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event that probably happened. It is impossible to reach 100% certainty. However, that should not detract from the discussion since that is the way it is in all of history. One can only prove what probably happened. The historical methodology used to ascertain whether something is to be considered a historical fact is whether the reasons for accepting it outweighs the reasons for rejecting it. It is my contention based upon this that the Resurrection stands on good ground. For evidence, my case is cumulative. IF Jesus was crucified, IF his disciples honestly had what they considered to be experiences of the risen Jesus, IF it can be demonstrated that Paul had suddenly converted, IF James who was skeptical brother of Jesus suddenly converted, and IF the tomb was found empty, and IF the alternative theories are not able to provide an adequate answer for the aforementioned facts that lends strong evidence http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-reasonable-to-believe-that-the-Resurrection-of-Jesus-is-a-historical-event/1/comments/ 2010-04-10T05:14:04-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Problem-of-Evil-never-succeeds-Attempt-1/1/ (Voting Period) ==== FULL RESOLUTION ==== There are literally no versions of the Problem of Evil argument that succeed at proving the non-existence of God. ==== CONTENTION ==== From versions of the logical Problem of Evil to its evidential varieties, including all forms of the Problem of Suffering, not a single one of these arguments ever succeed at proving the non-existence of God. That is the position I am affirming and defending. Although some of them expose powerful demands for a coherent and consistent theodicy, [1] that is not the same thing as proving that God cannot exist (logical versions) or probably does not exist (evidential versions). In other words, no versions thereof ever succeed as an Argument for Atheism. [2] Since there are countless versions of such Problem of Evil arguments, it would be impossible for me to make my case in the 8,000-character limitation imposed by this site. Therefore, I leave it to my opponent to employ whichever version of th http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Problem-of-Evil-never-succeeds-Attempt-1/1/comments/ 2010-02-13T01:29:15-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/We-Should-Have-Stricter-Gun-Control/1/ (Voting Period) This debate will cover whether or not we should have stricter gun control. For the first round, we will set up the perimeters and definitions. We should not have arguments/points/etc. in the first round, only introductions. From the second round onwards, we shall flesh out our arguments. Gun control would be considered as how easy it is to attain guns (meaning eligibility and sales), how strict the regulation on concealed weapons is, and how much power our government should have in terms of regulating guns. Gun control should not be considered on the levels of military and law enforcement. It is my position that we should not have stricter gun control. http://www.debate.org/debates/We-Should-Have-Stricter-Gun-Control/1/comments/ 2010-02-13T05:39:19-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Following-Arguments-for-the-Existence-of-God-are-Valid-1K/1/ (Voting Period) Note: the "1J" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com...... 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com...... 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). So in other words, it needs to be logically valid and sound. Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going. Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Following-Arguments-for-the-Existence-of-God-are-Valid-1K/1/comments/ 2009-11-15T17:46:49-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-Should-Be-Legalized./3/ (Voting Period) Gay Marriage should be a legal form of marriage for the simple fact that disallowing LGBT groups to marrying is taking a right that should be theirs. I'll let you go first, as I am contending that there are no substantial legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage, and thus it should be a right for any LGBT couple to marry. http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-Should-Be-Legalized./3/comments/ 2008-10-25T13:50:27-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Dualism-is-true./1/ (Post Voting Period) Recently, TheSkeptic and I got into a friendly discussion about substance dualism (which can hereby referred to as just "dualism") and we mutually decided to debate this issue. But in this debate I seek to defend and/or establish not a particular version of dualism (as there are many, many kinds even within substance dualism itself), just that "mere" dualism is true. I will be taking the Pro side in that I believe that dualism is true and that there are good reasons to believe dualism is true and my task is to demonstrate this. My opponent, TheSkeptic, will be taking the Con side and arguing that dualism is not true and there are good reasons to suppose this is the case. Now on to some definitions: Dualism - The view that the mental and the physical comprise two different classes of objects: minds and bodies. [1] True - Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous. [2] Rules: The first round is to be used only to either conse http://www.debate.org/debates/Dualism-is-true./1/comments/ 2010-02-13T18:58:28-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Americas-military-is-the-greatest-in-the-world./1/ (Voting Period) To answer your comment in http://www.debate.org/debate/11890/ why yes, TheSkeptic, I would. ************************************************************** America's military might is by no means small, it has such a variety of armed and unarmed forces supporting it that it can adapt to most situations and handle them effectively, what that statement does not encompass, however, is the fact that the enemy would be trying to do precisely the same thing. I intend to prove two points: Firstly: That America's wealth and technological innovation do not give it any advantage in open warfare that cannot be mimicked or used by other countries. Secondly: That TheSkeptic is a very foolish person indeed for choosing to debate warfare with someone like myself. No offence. First lets look at numbers, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Personnel the US has, in active service, in both combat roles and support roles, a to http://www.debate.org/debates/Americas-military-is-the-greatest-in-the-world./1/comments/ 2010-05-17T01:41:48-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Animal-rights-is-an-unjustified-ethical-doctrine./1/ (Voting Period) I thank my opponent for accepting this debate - I've been wanting to have this debate with my opponent specifically for awhile, so I hope this turns out well. To put it simply, it seems that Charlie here is one of the more prominent PETA advocates on this website, with his slew of PETA debates. Since it seems to be quite evident that he is in favor of PETA, one can easily draw the conclusion that he is also an animal right's activist - after all, if he isn't then he'd most likely be a hypocrite. That said, the purpose of this debate is to explore the moral background of animal rights, which I contend to be empty and unfulfilled. With that in mind, I have specifically made this debate 4 rounds. The latter 3 rounds will serve for the normal 3-Round template, but the first round will be my introduction round and my opponent's argument. By argument, I desire for my opponent to lay out his arguments for animal rights, since I want to address not animal rights http://www.debate.org/debates/Animal-rights-is-an-unjustified-ethical-doctrine./1/comments/ 2010-01-23T20:17:13-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Problem-of-Evil-never-succeeds-Attempt-1-Pt.-2/1/ (Voting Period) INTRODUCTION This is "Part 2" of a debate I am having with TheSkeptic regarding the Problem of Evil (PoE) as an argument for the non-existence of God. If you have not already done so, please see "Part 1" of this debate first before following and voting on "Part 2" (for it contains the agreed-upon definitions and parameters of the debate). [1] This debate in both parts is considered the first attempt at defeating my resolution because my opponent is still TheSkeptic. The next attempt will not be engaged until this chapter is concluded to the satisfaction of its participants. Toward that end, "Part 2" is going to allow the maximum number of rounds because, as discovered in "Part 1," three rounds is insufficient for our needs. Again, my resolution is, "There are literally no versions of the Problem of Evil argument that succeed at proving the non-existence of God." THE ARGUMENT In the first of these debates, my opponent chose to use "gratuitous evil" to d http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Problem-of-Evil-never-succeeds-Attempt-1-Pt.-2/1/comments/ 2010-03-28T03:45:42-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-Prima-Facie-Morally-Wrong/1/ (Voting Period) I'm going to offer a brief outline of the pro-life position that I defend, and I will engage in further argumentation in the subsequent rounds. The fundamental issue regarding the abortion debate is not women's rights or other factors which concern personal autonomy, but over the status of the unborn child. Variants of the personal choice argument presuppose that the unborn child is not a human person, for if the unborn child is indeed a human person, then no amount of freedom justifies its elective termination. Henceforth, variants of the personal autonomy argument beg the question by presupposing their conclusions: they are valid if and only if the unborn are not human persons. [1] As outlined by Francis J. Beckwith, my argument against abortion will be as follows : 1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community. 2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community 3. Every su http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-Prima-Facie-Morally-Wrong/1/comments/ 2009-12-03T15:40:43-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Rawslian-theory-is-a-justified-form-of-government./1/ (Voting Period) Sorry for the long delay, I had a lot of personal issues. Anyway, this is the first round for Freeman's tournament and an anticipated debate between me and my opponent. It's also been awhile since Ive debated - hopefully it's an enjoyable experience. I've made it 4 rounds since my plan was that Round 1 would be moreso of an introduction, or further stipulations/modifications that may be added. Here I want to define Rawlsian theory, make some clarifications, and invite my opponent to the same. Any substantive argumentation will take place in Rounds 2-4. What I primarily want to discuss is Rawls theory of "justice as fairness" - namely his take on the social contract, and the discussion of his landmark book A Theory Of Justice(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice). Concepts such as veil of ignorance, original position, etc. are relevant. Furthermore, I am open to varying positions that can be named as neo-Rawls, in the sense that I am not http://www.debate.org/debates/Rawslian-theory-is-a-justified-form-of-government./1/comments/ 2011-03-25T12:59:39-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Objectivism-fails-to-describe-an-adequate-meta-ethical-answer-for-the-is-ought-problem./1/ (Voting Period) I thank theLwerd for accepting this debate challenge, and I hope it becomes an enriching debate for both of us. I have specifically made this a 4 round debate because of the following reasons: since there are some hefty terms included in my resolution, I will define and elaborate on them. Then, I would like for my opponent to give a defense of Rand's Objectivism in her first round - this is not so much because of laziness, but rather so I don't have to presuppose anything my opponent does not believe in. Unfortunately, I am not so well-versed in Objectivism as to know whether or not there are differing views about it; so as a precaution, I ask of my opponent to supply her defense of Objectivist meta-ethics. So as stated, I will define the terms I have used, await my opponent's argument, then continue on with this debate as a normal 3-Round debate would: ==================== Definitions of terms and phrases ==================== [Objectivism] [htt http://www.debate.org/debates/Objectivism-fails-to-describe-an-adequate-meta-ethical-answer-for-the-is-ought-problem./1/comments/ 2009-10-12T11:54:23-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Three-Philosophical-Topics-1F/1/ (Voting Period) The free will debate is OFF-LIMITS unless I approve of you in the comment sections. So if you want to argue for the existence of free will, leave me a few comments so I can be sure that we can pass the very bare rudimentary philosophical material in our debate to avoid what can very well be a philosophy lecture. I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Free Will does not exist. PRO - Moral error theory is sound/There are currently no adequate meta-ethical theories that secure moral realism.* PRO - Time tr http://www.debate.org/debates/Three-Philosophical-Topics-1F/1/comments/ 2010-01-30T02:05:21-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-Should-Be-Legalized./5/ (Voting Period) ON GUARD! I affirm the resolution: Gary Marriage should be legalized. For the sake of clarity and being terse, the term "gay" will be an umbrella term for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. I am not arguing in what way gay marriage should be legalized (federal or states), but I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage. Do note that since this is in context of being legalized, saying that God is against gay marriage is obviously a moot point. Hopefully this debate won't turn into a debate about God, but rather about the points of gay marriage. ===== Gays deserve the same marital rights ===== My argument is simple and brief: gays deserve the same marital rights as a heterosexual. For a long time, marriage was only a traditional and religious thing. And it was fine for the heterosexuals to hog it for themselves (though if marriage was still purely traditional, I dou http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-Should-Be-Legalized./5/comments/ 2009-04-03T22:51:16-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-will-exists./2/ (Voting Period) I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. He will be playing the Devil's Advocate, as we agree on the issue of free will. Free will: The capability to make a free choice. Free choice: A choice that is ultimately not influenced by any outside entity and completely unpredictable, but is also completely rational from the perspective of the entity making the choice. Rational: Proceeding or derived from reason or based on logical reasoning. (dictionary.com) Note that a being with free will does not have to make every choice a free choice, but must only be capable of making a free choice. That is, some or even most choices that a person makes may be predictable, but for a person to have free will the person must be capable of being truly unpredictable. *** Why Free Will Is Impossible 1. Every event is either caused by something or caused by nothing. (This is not arguable.) 2. If an event is caused by something: it is not free because it http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-will-exists./2/comments/ 2009-09-27T20:59:51-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-literal-interpretation-of-the-flood-as-reported-in-the-Christian-NIV-bible-could-have-happened./1/ (Voting Period) Being Pro, I believe that Noah's Ark did happen as biblical literalists claim to be. My only requests for this debate is that my opponent prove to me the following: (A) A worldwide flood did Not ever happened. (B) Noah and his family did NOT create an Ark filled with animals and survive such a massive disaster. Remember, everything must be proven scientifically without having at any time resorting to the tired "God did it". Please make your arguments clear and orderly, and let's have fun debating :D http://www.debate.org/debates/The-literal-interpretation-of-the-flood-as-reported-in-the-Christian-NIV-bible-could-have-happened./1/comments/ 2008-08-28T19:30:35-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/I-can-disprove-evolution-like-i-could-disprove-a-book-having-no-front-cover./1/ (Voting Period) Lets start by introducing what evolution and creation have to say on this topic. Evolution tells us that life on earth has arose from slight less complex orgianiums into more structured and complex orgains. All based on mutaions, eviroment and the survival of the fit. Creation teaches that a supreme being normally named God, made all types of aminals, and none arose by chance or random selection. God made all the birds and fish, mamales, repties etc, then allowing variations with in a kind or family of animals (micro evolution) to occour. Now i said the basics lets start by the meaning of science. Science means testable repeatable, and exspimental testing which would have a time limit, based on that, evolution will remain a theory. In 1930 the theory of evolution was worldly spead and was named scienctific. Using logical methods you can see fatal flaws big enough to fit every book ever writen in side. Let me enphsise this point more, to disprove Newton's http://www.debate.org/debates/I-can-disprove-evolution-like-i-could-disprove-a-book-having-no-front-cover./1/comments/ 2008-12-09T23:53:32-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-vs-creationism-Why-is-evolution-taught-in-school-but-creation-not/1/ (Voting Period) Evolution is taught in school and creation is frowned upon but there are just as many flaws in evolution as there are in creation. http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-vs-creationism-Why-is-evolution-taught-in-school-but-creation-not/1/comments/ 2011-07-20T12:11:39-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Philosophy-The-Nature-of-Consciousness/1/ (Voting Period) In a conversation via profile comments, Geo and I touched upon the philosopher Alan Watts. In particular, Geo professed to share Watt's claims about the nature of consciousness. The following is a quote of which he supported (do note that all these come from my profile, but after awhile will be unaccessible if more comments are made [comments that are pushed down one's wall far enough will be unaccessible, it seems]). If you doubt the validity of any of these quotes, then refer to Geo to be reassured by my honesty. Anyway, here it is: "We must see that consciousness is neither an isolated soul nor the mere function of a single nervous system, but of that totality of interrelated stars and galaxies which makes a nervous system possible." - Alan Watts (Geo says this makes sense to him, i.e. he supports it) I'd like to have Geo defend this claim. While I find Watt's beliefs to be utterly preposterous, all positions should be treated in the same manner. http://www.debate.org/debates/Philosophy-The-Nature-of-Consciousness/1/comments/ 2009-12-27T21:06:59-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/David-Ickes-view-that-the-world-is-ruled-by-a-secret-group-called-Illuminati-is-false/1/ (Voting Period) I welcome GeoLaureate8 to this debate, and him in general to this website. I hope this turns out to be quite enjoying given it's unique nature ;) Unless I am mistaken, most members of Debate.org are new to these ideas that Geo has recently espoused upon entering this site. In general, his ideas align with David Icke's - an infamous British writer and public speaker who has developed this type of "New Age Conspiracism"[1]. To summarize it briefly, he basically believes that there is a secret group of elites in rule behind the many global powers of the world, and they conspire to eventually join the world into a "one world government", presumably to rule it with a fascist iron-fist. If my description of David Icke's and Geo's beliefs are wrong, then I ask of my opponent to feel free to correct me. So here I stand, allowing my opponent to have the first say. His burden is to prove that there is reasonable evidence of this conspiracy, while my burden is to http://www.debate.org/debates/David-Ickes-view-that-the-world-is-ruled-by-a-secret-group-called-Illuminati-is-false/1/comments/ 2009-04-13T00:31:11-08:00