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

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 452
Total Posts: 11533

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/18/04 - 02:00 PM:	#76
tgwnn wrote: Is there a winner in a debate? If so, how is he decided? It there is none, where's the fun of it? That's up to you to decide if you want your debate to be judged, and how -- specify that. (Poll thread is the easiest way.)
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Norseman
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 53

Posted 07/27/04 - 06:20 PM:	#77
I thought of a couple things I'd like to see debated, so here they are: Philosophy of Politics and Law •Whether it is best for a government to have inflation or deflation. •Whether it is ever justified to break international law in a war.
_____________________ "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle." "Jesus' last words on the cross were, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here."

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 08/03/04 - 10:37 AM:	#78
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Is anyone else gonna join in on the "democarcy" topic, or is it just gonna have to be a repeat of TSZ v. Soc? I'm in, either side provided we can get this going before september.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/03/04 - 04:41 PM:	#79
If we can get one more person, I'd be for a 2v2. Dibs on Jay
_____________________ "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

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/04/04 - 02:46 PM:	#80
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Anyone want to debate the existence of a supreme being, or something along those lines? I'm a non believer but I'll have a go at arguing the existence of god Robert Guy who thinks that would be an interesting way on evaluatingmy own beliefs

Poor Yorick
Ex Nihilo Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Location: Alpha Quadrant
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 344

Posted 08/04/04 - 03:02 PM:	#81
"debating the existence of a supreme being" has been done in Debate 2
_____________________ I perhaps did right in submitting my aphorism to a systematic appraiser. Perhaps something may come of it, a footnote in [a philosophical system] -- great idea! Then I would not have lived in vain! - Søren Kierkegaard I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity: in our common stupidity. - Søren Kierkegaard

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/04/04 - 05:23 PM:	#82
Indeed Yorick, but it was said that the topic could be revisited if sufficient time had passed from the first. I, personally, think that more than enough time has passed.
_____________________ "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 08/04/04 - 07:28 PM:	#83
roobarb wrote: I'm a non believer but I'll have a go at arguing the existence of god Robert Guy who thinks that would be an interesting way on evaluatingmy own beliefs Shall we make it a group debate? Perhaps Jay and Soc will join, if not would you be willing to debate democracy?

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/05/04 - 12:25 AM:	#84
I'll group up for the god debate, or if Roob wants to join in the democracy one that would be great too. I think they would both be very enjoyable debates either way.
_____________________ "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

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 08/05/04 - 11:14 AM:	#85
Alright I'll give it a go, but I'm not sure such a debate will be entertaining due to the nature of the question.

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/05/04 - 02:28 PM:	#86
Jay wrote: Alright I'll give it a go, but I'm not sure such a debate will be entertaining due to the nature of the question. I'd prefer to group debate with you three. I'd find it hard to argue outside of my belief in a democracy debate. What are the guidelines for a group debate? Robert Guy who thinks it will be entertaining watching me try and argue from the opposite side. So don't expect too many great insights

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/05/04 - 03:51 PM:	#87
Robert, do you want to do the democracy or the theism 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

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/05/04 - 06:32 PM:	#88
Socrastein wrote: Robert, do you want to do the democracy or the theism debate? Whoops, I thought you meant democracy as in a free for all debate style... I'd prefer the theism debate and argue for theism but if everyone wants to have a go at democracy i'll debate either way. Robert Guy who just won some wine and beer in the staff raffle

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/07/04 - 04:42 AM:	#89
After thinking about it some more, I don't think it would be wise to do the theism debate. I really just don't think it makes for good discussion. I've never heard a solid argument for theism (I'm not denying they exist, I've just yet to come across one) and to me the issue in its nature just seems weighted on the side of atheism. However, democracy has many powerful arguments for both sides and makes for excellent debate, again in my opinion. I could see myself competently arguing either side of the issue, but I cannot say the same for theism. As such, I say we do democracy. So as not to delay for another few days, I'll also propose that it be Jay and I vs. Roobarb and TSZ. Further, let me be so bold as to venture forth the suggestion that Jay and I argue that democracy is ideal, and you and TSZ can argue the opposing side. I only propose so much for the sake of progress. Days could pass waiting for the formation of teams, and more days waiting for the formation of who will take which side - I do not want to wait forever for this debate, as it has already taken to long. If I am being too bold, forgive me. I am simply anxious to get something going and do not want to waste precious time meandering over petty details. Unless anyone has any strong objections, I say we agree to that which I have proposed for the sake of speed and ease. Let me hear what you think Jay, Roobarb, and TSZ. If nobody has a problem with the details I've proposed, then post your consent and we will get some of the more important details worked out privately with Interlocutor.
_____________________ "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

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/10/04 - 06:39 PM:	#90
Socrastein wrote: After thinking about it some more, I don't think it would be wise to do the theism debate. I really just don't think it makes for good discussion. I've never heard a solid argument for theism (I'm not denying they exist, I've just yet to come across one) and to me the issue in its nature just seems weighted on the side of atheism. However, democracy has many powerful arguments for both sides and makes for excellent debate, again in my opinion. I could see myself competently arguing either side of the issue, but I cannot say the same for theism. As such, I say we do democracy. So as not to delay for another few days, I'll also propose that it be Jay and I vs. Roobarb and TSZ. Further, let me be so bold as to venture forth the suggestion that Jay and I argue that democracy is ideal, and you and TSZ can argue the opposing side. I only propose so much for the sake of progress. Days could pass waiting for the formation of teams, and more days waiting for the formation of who will take which side - I do not want to wait forever for this debate, as it has already taken to long. If I am being too bold, forgive me. I am simply anxious to get something going and do not want to waste precious time meandering over petty details. Unless anyone has any strong objections, I say we agree to that which I have proposed for the sake of speed and ease. Let me hear what you think Jay, Roobarb, and TSZ. If nobody has a problem with the details I've proposed, then post your consent and we will get some of the more important details worked out privately with Interlocutor. Agreed! Robert Guy who thinks there are times to be bold and times to shut your mouth. This is a bold time

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 08/10/04 - 07:03 PM:	#91
I'm good to go.....What's the exact phrasing of the debate? "Democracy is the most practical form of government"? "ideal form"?

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/10/04 - 07:15 PM:	#92
Ideal I would say, as in best of available options - which is pretty much the most practical anyway. Either way, i think we know what we'll be getting at.
_____________________ "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 08/10/04 - 07:48 PM:	#93
Jay, Roobarb, you guys have a preference?

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/10/04 - 08:42 PM:	#94
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Jay, Roobarb, you guys have a preference? I prefer ideal. Ideal and most practical are not the same in my view. So what are the guidelines for debating? Robert Guy who will have to study a bit about democracy, but is looking forward to the debate nevertheless

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 08/10/04 - 10:05 PM:	#95
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Jay, Roobarb, you guys have a preference? Either way is fine with me. Let's just get this show on the road.

EcceQuiTollisPeccataMundi
Hanzai kienai eien ni

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 08, 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO. US.
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 125

Posted 08/10/04 - 10:42 PM:	#96
How abouts' "If Naturalistic Philosopher's accept Kant's Analytic/Synthetic distinction, why should those Philosophers not be labeled as "Phenomenalists"'? I think that N Philosophers should accept Phenomenalism as a label... Or, "Is Synthetic A priori knowledge a possible possibility"?
_____________________ The Optimist: I do believe that it was a life-changing experience. From this point on, every chicken sandwich I eat will be compared to that one and I know they'll all fall short...What a terrible world. Hyena: Or you can say that with the rarity of such a chicken sandwich, all the low quality sandwiches you are going to eat from then onwards would always remind you of how lucky you are for being one of the few who have been able to taste such an extraordinary sandwich.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/11/04 - 01:11 AM:	#97
Well I believe that interlocutor is supposed to get back today, so if he sees this maybe he can meet us in chat and we can discuss the details of the group debate? I only suggest chat because it seems more practical than 5 people all trying to converse through private messages
_____________________ "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

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/11/04 - 02:46 PM:	#98
Socrastein wrote: Well I believe that interlocutor is supposed to get back today, so if he sees this maybe he can meet us in chat and we can discuss the details of the group debate? I only suggest chat because it seems more practical than 5 people all trying to converse through private messages Unfortunately my computer at school doesn't like some flash applications and the forums chat is one of those it doesn't like! Robert Guy who will be on sporadically today but will go along with whatever is decided

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/11/04 - 04:49 PM:	#99
Well, I guess we'll have to PM it. Just as soon as I one of us hears from Interlocutor.
_____________________ "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

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/11/04 - 06:17 PM:	#100
Socrastein wrote: Well, I guess we'll have to PM it. Just as soon as I one of us hears from Interlocutor. Well if the three of you decide something in chat, I'm happy to go in with whatever is decided. Robert Guy who is thinking about democracy already

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.