CreateDebate


Debate Info

38
37
true false
Debate Score:75
Arguments:71
Total Votes:77
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 true (31)
 
 false (34)

Debate Creator

atypican(4874) pic



Everyone's philosophical/logical first principles are accepted as self evident

Whether or not someone considers themselves religious, everyone's basic philosophical/ideological assumptions or presuppositions are accepted at face value. Though we cannot justify these root assumptions, we tend to marvel at how others don't accept the same ones "on faith" that we do.

true

Side Score: 38
VS.

false

Side Score: 37

I'll agree with your statement, but I don't agree with the Texas Rangers charging people $26 just to eat a chili dog at their stadium. That's a ridiculously high price!

Side: true
1 point

Yes. Although, this includes the contention in question. We may arrive at extreme skepticism, but doing so requires endorsing certain presumptions as well. Though I think it safe to say we cannot be assured of our views, we can no more negate the defensibility of our views than we can affirm it.

That we live with uncertain knowledge is not cause to abandon any view, nor even to regard the views of others as equally valid to our own. What is the truth of another to us, when it contradicts our own truth? To claim either is to assume a certain set of values which do not necessarily follow from the skeptical observation in question.

Side: true
1 point

Being an extreme skeptic has always come naturally to me. On the Very rare occasion I find a statement that's not easily reduced to absurdity by my " inner helper" and I, I tend to remember these kind of personality shaping statements. I do not assert that since all ideologies are fundamentally identical (in this sense) that one is therefore as well formed as the next. I just like to talk about root assumptions...because HERE we are all on equal footing.

Side: true
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

What a bunch of nonsense. everything is not true. Whoever told you all ideologies are fundamentally identical was either lying or deceived or both.

And since you present these ideas as truth, it reflects on your character.

Side: false
1 point

I did not mean to suggest anything about your own position; I was largely elaborating. That said, I do not think the question of "well-formedness" is particularly relevant at the point where we lack any objective standard to evaluate legitimacy by. To suggest that any ideology could be more well formed than another is also to assume a certain standard or set of standards for legitimacy which cannot themselves be defended beyond faith.

Side: true
1 point

If you can't tell the difference between lies and the truth, you must be retarded or on drugs. When there are conflicting opinions, they can't both be right and if you don't investigate to see if either one of them is right, accepting them both as true is stupid.....

At least you are consistent in stupidity, unable to recognize truth.

Side: false
atypican(4874) Disputed
3 points

You are welcome to address what I brought up whenever you get bored of making irrelevant insults to my intelligence

Side: true
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

you don't know the difference between truth and lies, and don't seem to care, so I question your character. You are obviously very intelligent.......just acting retarded in saying all opinions are equally valid.

Side: false
1 point

Everyone accepts their own root assumptions at face value. Some people accept things as being obvious when they are not. At the root of all intelligent philosophies lies a tautology. Some philosophies skip this however, and the fundamental premise is a statement to be accepted on faith rather than for its self-evident nature. Not all first principles are actually self-evident, some are just unexamined.

Side: false
1 point

Some philosophies skip this however, and the fundamental premise is a statement to be accepted on faith rather than for its self-evident nature. Not all first principles are actually self-evident, some are just unexamined.

Well there are certainly differing levels of certitude/faith, but I think for any proposition to be truly accepted, it must be truly understood. That position might be fun to defend..

Side: false
Amarel(4984) Clarified
1 point

It seems to me there is quite a bit of acceptance without understanding.

Side: true