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 06/10/04 - 10:43 PM:	#51
"Is there a supreme being" seems just as much an ontological concern as "what is the essence of being?". And as ontology is subsumed within metaphysics, I thought it fair that the notion of God as a supreme being, as long as it is kept in context, and those arguing the affirmative don't try to show some sort of necessity of a Prime Mover or Pure Act with Bible verses, it stays within the metaphysical realm. "Whether there exists a supreme being" is a different question than "Whether God exists". I've placed that latter question in the religion section now though, to reflect that.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 456
Total Posts: 11676

Posted 06/11/04 - 07:02 PM:	#52
Well, if that debate thread between Bluster and Distortion had been on the metaphysics forum I would've moved it to religion. It's all about god. No one, obviously, cares to debate about the existence of the supreme sized pizza. The discussion only comes about when you interpret being and supremeness in god-like ways. And you also have "Whether speculative reason can discover the existence of God." in metaphysics, which I would also move any thread about to religion. And "Whether spirit is the only reality.", 'spirit' seems a bit of a religious term.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 06/15/04 - 09:27 PM:	#53
Anyone want to debate the existence of a supreme being, or something along those lines?

softtarget
because

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 17, 2004
Location: ininity
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1496

Posted 06/15/04 - 09:30 PM:	#54
i'd debate about the existence of the supreme sized pizza, in the negative, of course.
softtarget a journey to nothingness

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 06/17/04 - 04:54 PM:	#55
Anyone want to debate the existence of a supreme being, or something along those lines? I'd love to - but not with a fellow non-believer
"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

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 06/18/04 - 01:28 AM:	#56
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Anyone want to debate the existence of a supreme being, or something along those lines? i might. but don't be sad when you lose. And I call no using 'there is no truth' as support for your argument. i also have an issue with number 18 on the debate rules. "18. Ad hominem arguments are not permitted." we need clarification here. see my posts in the logic forum: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6258 And we also need to clear about what we are going to debate. Whether god exists. Whether I know god exists. Whether we ought believe God exists. Whether God is omnipotent. You get the idea. And I have to go out of town this weekend, so we will need to wait a couple of days.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Ethereal
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 12, 2003
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 507

Posted 06/18/04 - 07:42 AM:	#57
Should there be a debate on whether we really need a debate forum?

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 06/18/04 - 11:14 AM:	#58
i also have an issue with number 18 on the debate rules. -flatliner An ad hominem is an informal fallacy which suggests that a proposition be denied because of irrelevant circumstances or character of an arguer. It is an attack not on the substance of an argument, but on things not much related to it. That's pretty much it. Should there be a debate on whether we really need a debate forum? -Ethereal "Need" is really relative, don't you think? Do we, for example, need a philosophy forum? Or did you need to write that question? The reason the Debates forum was created is because there was a push by some members to see it happen. The reason I voted for its creation is that I thought that a site calling itself "philosophyforums.com" ought to have a debate forum. But ultimately, Paul felt it a worthwhile endeavor. So I don't see as how there can be any debate about its necessity.

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 06/18/04 - 12:22 PM:	#59
Interlocutor wrote: i also have an issue with number 18 on the debate rules. -flatliner An ad hominem is an informal fallacy which suggests that a proposition be denied because of irrelevant circumstances or character of an arguer. It is an attack not on the substance of an argument, but on things not much related to it. That's pretty much it. This is my point. There is more to ad hominems than this. I guess this is only kind of ad hominem ruled out by number 18?
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 06/18/04 - 10:32 PM:	#60
Basically, I just don't want people calling each other "tools' and "retards," or saying that their opponent is this or that, so they just couldn't understand, or that a particular belief held by their opponent (such as their Christianity in a debate about logic, for example) precludes them from understanding a point or making a correct argument. I read the exchange between you and Gassendi1. Quite frankly, I didn't see anything offered by either of you that suggests that ad hominems are anything more than what I suggested. If you are able to point out something about the circumstances or the character of your opponent which demonstrate the falsity of his argument, that's not fallacious, and is likely permissible in these debates.

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 06/19/04 - 01:50 AM:	#61
Interlocutor wrote: Basically, I just don't want people calling each other "tools' and "retards," or saying that their opponent is this or that, so they just couldn't understand, or that a particular belief held by their opponent (such as their Christianity in a debate about logic, for example) precludes them from understanding a point or making a correct argument. I read the exchange between you and Gassendi1. Quite frankly, I didn't see anything offered by either of you that suggests that ad hominems are anything more than what I suggested. If you are able to point out something about the circumstances or the character of your opponent which demonstrate the falsity of his argument, that's not fallacious, and is likely permissible in these debates. Pointing out that an opponent's claim commits him to a beleif that is inconsistent with his other beliefs is technically called an ad hominem. This is not fallacious. It does not show that the opponent's initial claim is false, but it does show that opponent does not believe it. And it is a brilliant tool in debate. For instance, "what you just said commits you to the belief that only republicans make good presidents, but you don't believe that, you're a democrat." This ought get the opponent to relinquish the initial claim and there would be no need to respond to it directly. Since number 18, saying 'no ad hominems' rules out this kind of ad hominem, I think it only right to ask for clarification.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 06/19/04 - 02:40 PM:	#62
It does not show that the opponent's initial claim is false, but it does show that opponent does not believe it. I'm more inclined to think that it doesn't attack the circumstances or the character of the person, as much as it does their opinions, which, essentially, is their arguments. So since it does that, I'm not sure it can be ad hominem. Anyway, whether it is or it isn't isn't relevant. Generally, as long as the methodology of argumentation pertains defeating the arguments of the person, as opposed to the person himself, they should be fine. The rules are there for a reason, but there is wiggle room within them. I wouldn't be concerned about the one situation you brought up. That seems as if it would most likely be fine in these debates.

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 06/19/04 - 08:50 PM:	#63
Aye, aye, captain.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Ethereal
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 12, 2003
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 507

Posted 06/19/04 - 10:16 PM:	#64
Interlocutor wrote: "Need" is really relative, don't you think? Do we, for example, need a philosophy forum? Or did you need to write that question? The reason the Debates forum was created is because there was a push by some members to see it happen. The reason I voted for its creation is that I thought that a site calling itself "philosophyforums.com" ought to have a debate forum. But ultimately, Paul felt it a worthwhile endeavor. So I don't see as how there can be any debate about its necessity. Apologies for the sarcasm, but I don't really see a need for a separate debate forum when almost all exchanges in the other forums are debates too.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 06/20/04 - 06:01 AM:	#65
Apologies for the sarcasm, but I don't really see a need for a separate debate forum when almost all exchanges in the other forums are debates too. Spontaneous duels pop up here and there on the forums, but the debate forum is designed to specifically initiate and conduct them. A handful of people randomly spouting off to one another in a thread hardly compares to two members taking the time to specifically and individually debate one another logically and formally. The exchange between TSZ and I for instance, is not something you'll often find in any of the other threads. This debate forum separates and then advocates the difference.
"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

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 06/20/04 - 02:11 PM:	#66
Basically the Debates forum is for those who want to participate in a bit more formal exchange, and for those who wish to delve a bit more deeply than normal into the topics. I could have made it much more formal, but I figured most people here wouldn't care for that, and such further restrictions erect prohibitive barriers for many people, in both debate participation and debate comprehension. So despite the number of rules in place, it's still pretty informal. Doubtless then, you'll see many debates which look a lot more like typical threads than formal debates. But it all depends on the debaters themselves. That works best, I think.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 06/30/04 - 06:53 PM:	#67
I will retry the Democracy as the most practical form of Government debate, if anyone wants to. I prefer the affirmative, but I could take the negative if necessary.
"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 06/30/04 - 07:41 PM:	#68
I'll debate the democracy topic with you, if no one else want too. Or perhaps we could do a debate with more than one person on each side.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 06/30/04 - 08:09 PM:	#69
Yeah, if a couple other people want to jump in for a group debate, that would be awesome.
"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

dan.
practically pragmatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2004
Location: akademia
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 113

Posted 06/30/04 - 08:35 PM:	#70
i'm all over debating that human beings are not of greater value than animals.
I don't want the world, I just want your half.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 07/15/04 - 09:09 PM:	#71
Is anyone else gonna join in on the "democarcy" topic, or is it just gonna have to be a repeat of TSZ v. Soc?

Interlocutor
Professor

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

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 07/17/04 - 01:53 PM:	#72
Start a debate... There's a list of proposed debate topics at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/8183 , but you may also choose a topic of your own. If you want to debate a particular topic, post your interest to do so here. Or, if you see that someone has posted their desire to debate, feel free to accept a challenge, and contact them to hammer out the details. When you have a debate partner (or group if desired), submit your proposed debate at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/index.php?cust... Note: When declaring your interest in a particular topic, it is always helpful to specify what, if any, other rules you would like to apply to your debate, so other posters have an idea of what they might be in for. Such as: Originally Posted by any poster Topic: Whether morality is absolute? My position: Yes Debate Type: Standard Need someone to debate the no side. Would prefer a 5 round debate. Edited by Paul on 07/15/05 - 07:44 AM

Esran
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 175

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 07/17/04 - 04:38 PM:	#73
Topic: Mary and the black and white room, or color blind to all colors Mary. Question: Assuming Mary knows everything about all colors, will she still learn something new if she saw orange for the first time? My Position: No Other Information: I'm seeking someone who wants to argue the "yes" position. I propose a three round debate. The person arguing the "yes" goes first. Interested? Contact me via private message. Links: 1) http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=58 2) http://forums.philosophyforums.com/...read.php?t=1364 3) http://forums.philosophyforums.com/...read.php?t=4030
St. Nilus O Lord Jesus Christ Son Of God Have Mercy Upon Me A Sinner

tgwnn
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2004
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/18/04 - 10:54 AM:	#74
Is there a winner in a debate? If so, how is he decided? It there is none, where's the fun of it?

JHBowden
I love you guys!

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2003
Location: Little Italy, Chicago
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/18/04 - 12:48 PM:	#75
Topic: Foundationalism versus Coherentism My position: Foundationalism Debate type: Standard Rounds: Undecided edit: 8-19-04 Topic: The Nature of Truth My position: Correspondence Debate type: Standard Rounds: Undecided Topic: The Reality of Properties My position: Realism Debate type: Standard Rounds: Undecided Edit 11-1-03 Topic: Internalism and Externalism My position: Internalism Debate type: Standard Rounds: Undecided
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -- Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20 "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.