Any member, any topic, as long as I have veto power over the topic.
Let’s do it, the first one to post up a topic I like (and what sides each of us are to defend) and we’ll have a go at it.
I haven’t participated in a good Formal Debate for at least two weeks. I’ve been getting cold chills, the shakes, vomiting, paranoia. It’s tough, man, I need a fix.
I am bumping this because I posted it in the wrong place!
How do you feel about burqas/burqa laws?
Is that what those things are called?
I’m just kidding, what side would you defend?
I guess I think burqas are about as sexist as western clothing moors, except that women are explicitly punished for not wearing a burqa, while they are implicitly punished for not wearing, e.g. high heels.
I would argue that laws against burqas are predominantly xenophobic in origin, and that women’s rights should be protected generally, as an application of human rights, rather than by restricting certain specific practices.
I would be happy to argue that Burqa laws are more a matter of practicality than Xenophobia.
Holy Moses has no one debated since I left here? Daaaaaaaamn!Ok i will pit myself against women’s rights. If a female wants rights she should have to fight for them. 
Want a piece?
I’ll defend the position that Women’s Rights have the same inalienability as Human Rights (in general) which need not be fought for.
How about we debate whether or not science can properly dispense with metaphysics?
How about someone trying to argue me out of my position that everything in life/history/cataogory x is as it should be, and couldn’t have ever been anything else.
That’s a bit vague I know.
Vague, but I like it. Let me think and feel some about it and get back to you. 
K. I’ll warn you though, I’m a tiger. Grr.
Call it determinism vs probability and you might get somewhere to start from at least. Problem is of course this is a subject that doesn’t lend well to the shorter debate formats, as it tends to run and run.
Kinda done probability vs. determinism out the ass. They turn out to be the same thing.
Without using the dryness of philosophical terms, how’s about “Reality” vs. “Fairy Tales” or The “Adult” vs. The “Child?”
Tab has decided to take Pangloss’ approach to Philosophy I see.
In this, the best of all possible worlds…I am working a twelve-hour shift today, I have serious constipation cramps because I have been backed up for four days, my knee is killing me and I have to move with pretty much just my wife and I doing all the labor because the closing of a house has to get re-scheduled so many times that there were no available movers, except for maybe one place that won’t talk to me anymore because they got sick of me canceling.
In all seriousness, though, I’m not particularly a fan of Fatalistic Determinism or Necessitarianism (whatever you would call it, it can be called either), but I am something of a Compatibilist. I would take Compatabilism against Fatalistic Determinism in a Debate if you would like, Tab.
Not in science they aint, if they were then we’d be sitting on a grand unified theory right now, clearly philosophy has some catching up to do. 
Calrid - Nah, I ain’t typing out 2000 words in qualification. I will instead say “Oh c’mon, you know what I mean.”
I call it ‘inevitabilism’ - things are bound by their nature to unfold in a certain way - which may or may not be the same. Explain what you mean by ‘compatabilism’ in 25 words or less, and you’ve got a debate. Arooga.
Ok but I stand that if rights are given people just throw them away. Rights and having rights means having self respect and confidence of self. Rights need to be fought for and defended against humans and for humans our very nature requires fighting for things we value. Giving us something spoils us and we have no value of it. Give a people rights without them having to fight for them , they will waste them throw them away and become dependent upon their masters again.,Hmm, this could get racial too,hmm.
Yeah well that’s probably why these arguments don’t lend themselves to debate, mostly it turns out people disagree on semantics and nothing is usually any clearer at the end.