Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling » Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling

Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 05/01/04 - 08:55 PM:	#26
The current debates are concluded, as much as they will be anyway. One of the participants in each was unable to complete the debate. The topics may be taken up again, but not at this time. There should be other debates forthcoming, but I can't guarantee anything.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/04/04 - 05:42 PM:	#27
•Whether human beings are of greater value than animals. •Whether there exists absolute truth. •Whether a priori knowledge is possible. •Whether homosexuality is ethical. •Whether suicide can ever be ethical. •Whether abortion is ethical. •Whether hunting animals for sport is ethical. •Whether religion is a positive social institution. •Whether democracy is the ideal form of government. •Whether affirmative action is a just social institution. •Whether voting in a fundamentally flawed political system is worthwhile. •Whether the general mass of humanity should rule itself, or should be ruled by the elite. •Whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry. •Whether mandatory military service would be worthwhile. •Whether “under God” should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegience. •Whether the current state and progression of humanity is leading towards a higher social order, or relative social destruction. •Whether children should be educated in any specific religion. If anyone is interested, I would be willing to debate any of the above topics. For many I could willingly take either side, and for some I would insist on one particular position, it is simply a matter of contacting me and finding out, for I am far too lazy to address my stance and flexibility on every single issue. I support the idea of a smaller word limit - I had a hard enough time reading through the thousands of words that constituted 3 meager posts - I can only imagine how turned off most people would be to read 20 posts for 3 hours. Get to the point, I say
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 05/04/04 - 07:49 PM:	#28
I would debate you, Socrastein. Any preferred topic to debate me in?

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/04/04 - 08:02 PM:	#29
Hmmm. I wish I knew enough about you to see what would make good discussion between us (opposing views we have). Give me a run down of your general views, and maybe we can come up with something that we could argue eachother on. I am an agnostic, I find nearly every argument I've heard for God to be weak at best and absurd at worst. I do not "believe" in America or democracy, finding them both to be terrible. I hold no religious beliefs along the lines of abortion/homosexuality, and am thus for both. I am rather pessimistic about man, finding the species to be patently stupid and heading toward its own destruction. However, this doesn't make me a pessimist in whole, for all the stupidity and destruction that defiles the world makes me appreciate the enlightened and constructive all the more. I would argue with anyone that absolute/a priori truth can be known, but very little of it - the rest is speculation and assumption. I assume we share common ground on many things, for the sake of debate I hope I'm wrong
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 05/05/04 - 07:35 AM:	#30
Socrastein wrote: Hmmm. I wish I knew enough about you to see what would make good discussion between us (opposing views we have). Give me a run down of your general views, and maybe we can come up with something that we could argue eachother on. I am an agnostic, I find nearly every argument I've heard for God to be weak at best and absurd at worst. I do not "believe" in America or democracy, finding them both to be terrible. I hold no religious beliefs along the lines of abortion/homosexuality, and am thus for both. I am rather pessimistic about man, finding the species to be patently stupid and heading toward its own destruction. However, this doesn't make me a pessimist in whole, for all the stupidity and destruction that defiles the world makes me appreciate the enlightened and constructive all the more. I would argue with anyone that absolute/a priori truth can be known, but very little of it - the rest is speculation and assumption. I assume we share common ground on many things, for the sake of debate I hope I'm wrong I am rather pessimistic about man, finding the species to be patently stupid and heading toward its own destruction. I would debate against this. And I think we have sparred on that topic before. I could debate in a few days, I just have to return to my homeland first.

DarkCloud
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Total Topics: 156
Total Posts: 2695

Posted 05/05/04 - 09:56 AM:	#31
I think challenges are a decent way to starting up debate; indeed, one of the only ways. However, I don't think that challenges as such are to be made in public. If you want to debate with someone, you could contact Interlocutor or that particular member by PM or email; then, if it is agreed, you can go right ahead. I don't think the idea of “public challenges” is that much of a good idea; particularly when there are other ways. A good idea the more passion- the more will that each member might have to do the research and continue the discussion And if it's a "forum grudge war" between Baron Max and geoff23, for example, I'm sure that would interest even more tangential discussion, debate by non-participants... whose debate and catcalls would urge the participans on

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/05/04 - 02:50 PM:	#32
I would debate against this. And I think we have sparred on that topic before. I could debate in a few days, I just have to return to my homeland first. Ah, how could I forget? I do remember sparring with you on this before Do you want to debate whether or not man is generally ignorant/"evil", or whether or not man is walking the path toward his own doom?
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 05/14/04 - 10:13 AM:	#33
I'm out of school, so if anyone want to debate about anything, I'll most likely do it.....

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/14/04 - 12:03 PM:	#34
Like I said Thus, I'll willingly debate the debates I pulled from the list. Just scroll up a bit, and if any look good, then I'll gladly have it out with you
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/15/04 - 09:42 AM:	#35
Jay wrote: How often are you lucky enough for that? It's hard enough getting a menage a trois , let alone a group... It was just a joke... I was thinking about the idea of more-than-two-people-debates, and I think that a supreme being argument with theism v. atheism v. agnosticism could work. The rules would probably have to change a bit, such as rule 7 requiring all three opening posts before the debate begins. I would imagine the turn sequence would progress in the order I listed the three positions above, with one post for each position, such as: 1: Theist opening arguments 2: Atheist opening arguments 3: Agnostic opening arguments 4: Theist 5: Atheist 6: Agnostic 7... although I could picture an alternative where each position addresses each other position individually, thus setting a turn order like: 1: Theist opening arguments 2: Atheist opening arguments 3: Agnostic opening arguments 4. Theist to Atheist 5. Theist to Agnostic 6. Atheist to Theist 7. Atheist to Agnostic 8. Agnostic to Theist 9. Agnostic to Atheist 10... and so on, although this would create an exceedingly long debate, so I would prefer the first system. I wouldn't mind arguing agnosticism, if such a debate is created.

thesteadman
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 15, 2004
Location: planet earth
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 5

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 05/15/04 - 12:00 PM:	#36
I am still quite new, but how about a debate on companies spying on us? Just read the link, it says it all........ http://www.spychips.com/

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 05/16/04 - 07:36 PM:	#37
Socrastein wrote: Like I said Thus, I'll willingly debate the debates I pulled from the list. Just scroll up a bit, and if any look good, then I'll gladly have it out with you "Religion is a positive institution" Or the "a priori"/"absolute" ones

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 05/16/04 - 08:26 PM:	#38
"Religion is a positive institution" Or the "a priori"/"absolute" ones Sounds good, which side would you be willing to take on either one?
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 05/17/04 - 01:43 PM:	#39
Socrastein wrote: Sounds good, which side would you be willing to take on either one? I would prefer neg on both of them, but I could take either side to tell the truth.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/17/04 - 06:45 PM:	#40
Sounds fine, cause I could take the positive on both. First, we need to clarify though. Religion - Would your negative be something along the lines of "The world would be a better place if there was no religion"? Give me a concise position so I know what you're view would be. Absolutes - Would you say that there is nothing that we can know absolutely whatsoever? Would you refute "Cogito ergo sum" somehow, or say that it doesn't count since only the one person can know, and an absolute should be absolute for everyone? Again, a specific statement of your position, to make sure we don't start the debate and realize we agree
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 05/17/04 - 07:12 PM:	#41
I don't think I would try to prove the neg religion, as much as I would just claim that the positive side is wrong.... Religion cannot possibly be positive, as all these negative things have happened because of it....something along those lines. . .Not proving its negative, just that it isn't positive And on the absolutes, I would just try to debunk each specific example brought up, and try to logically derive the idea that everything is relative..... I'm not exactly sure though. I'd have to wait untill I formulated my first post.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/17/04 - 08:36 PM:	#42
Sounds good to me. PM whatever details you want, which one you want to do (first? maybe we can end up doing both), when you could start, any special rules, what not.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

dion anthony
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2004
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/17/04 - 08:57 PM:	#43
what about the followings: political literature , the clash of civilisations , man in the modern art , movie and moralism , the man of future

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/17/04 - 09:03 PM:	#44
Dion - Forgive my ignorance, but I find myself unable to infer the debatable nature of those topics. Perhaps you could humor me and be more specific in how those things create 2 or more sides with which to debate?
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

dion anthony
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2004
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/17/04 - 10:35 PM:	#45
Socrastein wrote: Dion - Forgive my ignorance, but I find myself unable to infer the debatable nature of those topics. Perhaps you could humor me and be more specific in how those things create 2 or more sides with which to debate? well Socrastein talking about "the man of future",for example, can cover one's interest in discussion of religion and its impact on man's tomorrow.At the same time we can talk about the place of moralism in man's future life. Can man find new ways of justifying the existance of God.And a lot more

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/18/04 - 11:45 AM:	#46
well Socrastein talking about "the man of future",for example, can cover one's interest in discussion of religion and its impact on man's tomorrow.At the same time we can talk about the place of moralism in man's future life. Can man find new ways of justifying the existance of God.And a lot more Sort of along the lines of "Will religion die out over time as science progresses?"
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 06/05/04 - 02:14 PM:	#47
I like RandomPrecision's idea for group debates, and if anyone is willing, I think it would be interesting to try out.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Skinners, CA
Total Topics: 454
Total Posts: 11743

Posted 06/09/04 - 06:48 PM:	#48
I don't see how "•Whether there exists a supreme being." is metaphysics, seems like religion to me. Anyhow, I suggest a metaphysics debate on presentism vs. eternalism and possibilism: "Whether only the present is real." When it comes to group debates, it doesn't have to be one person to a position as long as it's still one person at a time I would think. You could have two people to a side, for example, and have them alternate their posts in order to lower the amount of time each individual has to devote to the debate. This could allow debates to move along quicker and lessen the chances of an early death due to someone not having the time to continue. Of course, this would only work when the teams cooridate well to work off of each others arguments.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 06/10/04 - 08:44 AM:	#49
It's in metaphysics because the existence of God can be discussed outside of a religious context. And furthermore, if such a thing is going to be proven or disproven, it's more likely to be metaphysics than religion that does it. In fact, though I'm not sure I can imagine how metaphysics could do so, it seems pretty much impossible that a theological argument could do so.

Liberepublicat
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Location: Kansas
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 1261

Posted 06/10/04 - 07:17 PM:	#50
Interlocutor wrote: It's in metaphysics because the existence of God can be discussed outside of a religious context. And furthermore, if such a thing is going to be proven or disproven, it's more likely to be metaphysics than religion that does it. In fact, though I'm not sure I can imagine how metaphysics could do so, it seems pretty much impossible that a theological argument could do so. I have yet to see the question of the existence of God discussed outside a religious context. Could you point me to any such discussions?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.