http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&member=longjonsilver Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2013-05-22T16:46:18-08:00 2013-05-22T16:46:18-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-Abortion-moral/1/ (Voting Period) I am pro choice in that i believe in the woman's right not to have sex and i believe in the right of a baby to control his/her body. http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-Abortion-moral/1/comments/ 2007-12-28T01:38:27-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-will-does-not-exist./2/ (Voting Period) For the purpose of this debate I will assume that god does not exist. (If you want to try to prove that god exists then go to relgion.) Also. Please don't come into this debate saying that we must have free will because every day we make choices and so on. Without religion or a soul it is impossible for the brain to evade standard physical laws. In this round I will be defending scientific determinism. Usually people dismiss me when I first propose this. I proceed with several questions: 1. Does an atom have free will? Why would you believe that atoms working together would be able to fight the laws of the universe? 2. If conciousness is what allows for free will then how does it react with matter without being subject to the laws of the universe? 3. Where do you draw your abitrary line? If a labotomy can completely change who you are, then the physical makeup of your brain clearly matters in determining how you act. If dopamine can change how yo http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-will-does-not-exist./2/comments/ 2007-12-23T23:21:59-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/There-should-be-a-debate-section-for-philosophy-and-other-topics./1/ (Voting Period) Philosophy: Debate is an integral portion of philosophy and I would love to have debates on ethics, political philosophy, free will, etc. but there is not a section. "Other": Because it would be conceded and closed-minded to think that you can create a list of all possible debate categories. After all. I couldn't even find a legitimate category to put this topic. http://www.debate.org/debates/There-should-be-a-debate-section-for-philosophy-and-other-topics./1/comments/ 2007-12-21T10:45:09-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Consequentialism-is-the-most-justifiable-ethical-theory./1/ (Voting Period) Natural rights and deontological rules are arbitrary claims. There is not one sound justification for a deontological ethical system. I challenge you to prove me wrong. If the means justify the ends then how do we know what just means are? Moral relativism is week. You cannot claim that the ethical status of a particular action is founded in the disposition of the majority. Was slavery acceptable? It seems to me that moral relativism would have to say that it is. What does this leave? The only remaining option: Consequentialism. Everyone subconsciously knows this. Thats why almost every debate you see on this website banks on the effects of a policy/idea. Any other argument must function off of some kind of implicit axiom that could easily be rejected by an opponent. Utility is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable and disutility is the only thing that is intrinsically evil. How could any ethical system function off of anything other than the maxi http://www.debate.org/debates/Consequentialism-is-the-most-justifiable-ethical-theory./1/comments/ 2007-12-20T12:29:51-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-s-War-On-Drugs-ought-to-end./1/ (Voting Period) I tried this argument once before and ended up debating someone who doesn't speak. So this is my second shot. I will save the most of my arguments for when I have loured someone into debating me. Until then I will make a simple argument that initially tilts the scale in my favor. Everything should be legal until a case for criminalization has been proven. I contend that there are almost no arguments for drugs to be illegal and a multiplicity of quality arguments for the legalization of drugs. I contend that any legitimate arguments for criminalization are not very significant and can be outweighed on magnitude by the benefits of legalization. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-s-War-On-Drugs-ought-to-end./1/comments/ 2008-01-04T22:00:08-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/All-drugs-should-be-legalized/1/ (Voting Period) I will save the beef of my arguments for when I have loured someone into debating me. Until then I will make a simple argument that puts the decision in my favor. Everything should be legal until a case for criminalization has been proven. I contend that there are almost no arguments for drugs to be illegal and a multiplicity of quality arguments for the legalization of drugs. Any legitimate arguments are not very significant and can be outweighed on magnitude by the benefits of legalization. Note: I HATE statistic/study battles bring me your logic. http://www.debate.org/debates/All-drugs-should-be-legalized/1/comments/ 2007-12-30T23:00:46-08:00