http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&member=asyetundefined Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2013-05-21T19:36:42-08:00 2013-05-21T19:36:42-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Defeding-Inalienable-Rights-a-Crisis-of-Philosophy-We-are-unable-to-defend-natural-rights/1/ (Voting Period) A disturbing thing has occurred to me. It should be well known by now that I have always held that Man has certain inalienable rights. Indeed, several key points of my ideology hinder on this belief. If the right to life in not an inherent, natural right, then one cannot reasonable defend any other rights as such. Let us be clear that such matters can still be resolved under the theory of social contract- that is, so long as the People agree to defend all life, there is no danger of losing legal protection of one's right to exist. The problem, however is this: If we are unable to defend certain rights, such as the rights to life and liberty, as natural and inalienable in nature, then we are wholly dependent upon social contract to defend these rights, as the only possible conclusion would be that they are granted purely by the group. The crisis lies in the fact that if such a position is adopted, then there is no line of reasonable or logical defense against http://www.debate.org/debates/Defeding-Inalienable-Rights-a-Crisis-of-Philosophy-We-are-unable-to-defend-natural-rights/1/comments/ 2009-04-10T13:54:24-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Raptor-Jesus-from-4chan-is-blasphemous./1/ (Voting Period) Hello. I am Jordana Brewster. You may know me from such movies as Fast and Furious and TV shows such as Chuck. I argue that Raptor Jesus is blasphemous. I offer one reason why: his prayer. Our Raptor, Who art in /h/eaven, shopped be Thy face; Thy donations come, Thy posts be done in /b/ as it is in /h/eaven. Give us this day our daily Bridget; and forgive us our trolling as we forgive those who troll against us, and lead us not into f****try, but deliver us from /fur/ry. In the name of the Moot, the Raptor, and the Holy Server, Amen. My opponents burden is to prove that Raptor Jesus is somehow NOT blasphemous. And by the way, a definition: adj. Impiously irreverent. http://www.debate.org/debates/Raptor-Jesus-from-4chan-is-blasphemous./1/comments/ 2009-04-16T11:18:37-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy/1/ (Post Voting Period) I intend to defend the view that Polygamy, being the right to marry multiple, consenting, age-appropriate partners of whatever gender should be acceptable. Unfortunately in modern society polygamy is generally an exclusive right of males and is practiced primarily in third-world or Islamic nations. This anecdotal information regarding polygamy should be understood as being inconsequential towards the true ethical acceptance or non-acceptance of it. PROPER polygamy, as I intend to promote, is as follows: -The Right to marry any number of consenting, age-appropriate persons of any gender. Furthermore, since this is an ethical concern regarding legal status, social-acceptability plays little role; that is, social-xenophobia towards polygamy is NOT a factor. thus, since as said this is a primarily ETHICAL question (which has legal implications), and my 'original-position' (viability of polygamy) is stated as being ethically neutral, the burden of proof http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy/1/comments/ 2009-04-08T09:12:29-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Validity-of-Philosophical-Skepticism/1/ (Voting Period) The debate is not about whether or not we should actually be skeptics, but rather whether or not skepticism has any valid points. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Validity-of-Philosophical-Skepticism/1/comments/ 2008-10-27T19:19:10-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/ETHICS-of-Polygamy/1/ (Post Voting Period) I attempted to have this debate a little while back - but due to initial confusion the argument didn't really get off the ground... anyhow. I intend to defend the view that Polygamy, being the right to marry multiple, consenting, age-appropriate partners of whatever gender should be ETHICALLY acceptable. This means CON will argue against the ethical-viability of Polygamy. Unfortunately in modern society, polygamy is generally an exclusive right of males and is practiced primarily in third-world or Islamic nations. This anecdotal information regarding polygamy should be understood as being inconsequential towards the true ethical acceptance or non-acceptance of it. PROPER polygamy, as I intend to promote, is as follows: -The Right to marry any number of consenting, age-appropriate persons of any gender. Furthermore, since this is an ethical concern regarding legal status, social-acceptability plays little role; that is, social-xenophobia towards poly http://www.debate.org/debates/ETHICS-of-Polygamy/1/comments/ 2009-04-15T12:03:59-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/current-economics/1/ (Post Voting Period) I believe are current economic ways are doomed to fail because they haven't been kept up to date. and instead of us getting richer and richer the us and the world are getting poor I believe I have a better way to this by making a new system of how are economics work http://www.debate.org/debates/current-economics/1/comments/ 2009-04-30T20:16:31-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Irreducible-subjectivity-and-consciousness/1/ (Post Voting Period) Thomas Nagel, John Searle, and Jerry Fodor all postulate the notion that consciousness is 'irreducibly-subjective' - that is, consciousness has a property of privileged-access in that experience is decidedly or necessarily First-Person and cannot not be so. I disagree. I suggest that the 'subjectivists' of consciousness, et al, are wrong. PRO will take up the position that consciousness is indeed irreducibly-subjective; I await a great argument. Let the contentions be raised! http://www.debate.org/debates/Irreducible-subjectivity-and-consciousness/1/comments/ 2009-04-19T11:21:39-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-there-such-a-thing-as-PROGRESS/1/ (Post Voting Period) (regards to David Baugh for re-instigating my interest in this question) PROGRESS is a word that is bandied about in contemporary society. Hegel felt that civilization was on a 'march-of-reason'. Political movements are sometimes 'progressive', people think that society and culture also progress in some way or another - they cite instances such as the end of slavery, the death of spiritualism in the west, computers, globalization, modern-science & medicine, humanism, you name it - its considered progress. But does PROGRESS (in the philosophical sense) really exist? What is progress? I would define it as growth and movement towards a positive and holistic end. Perhaps my definition is unfair, but I feel that Progress is an illusion. History is, as we know it, written by the victorious - not necessarily the most 'progressed'. Also for progress to exist it seems to be the case that an END must also exist, to which progress can be aimed towards - and I don' http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-there-such-a-thing-as-PROGRESS/1/comments/ 2009-04-08T11:35:12-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Gene-Selection-in-Embryos/1/ (Voting Period) The category is better defined as "bioethics". It should be acceptable for parents planning on having a child to perform gene-selection upon embryos. The major benefit of embryonic selection is the ability to prevent genetic diseases from one's immediate offspring. -I have kept my position light as to keep the debate open-ended. Take this position any-which way you prefer. http://www.debate.org/debates/Gene-Selection-in-Embryos/1/comments/ 2008-11-05T15:33:36-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Gene-Therapy/1/ (Post Voting Period) The Pro would be arguing the side "It should be acceptable for parents planning on having a child to perform gene-selection upon embryos." http://www.debate.org/debates/Gene-Therapy/1/comments/ 2008-11-09T07:17:41-08:00