Atheists do not exist - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Atheists do not exist
in Religion

By Ajit_Krishna_DasaAjit_Krishna_Dasa 19 Pts edited March 10
Hi!

So far my conclusions is that atheism and agnosticism are self-contradictory for the following reasons: 

Atheism and agnosticism are dependent on presuppositions that cannot be accounted for by atheism itself. These are presuppositions about the existence of the laws of logic, truth and knowledge, the validity of our cognitive faculties, the existence of values and morality, and more.

Theism, on the other hand, can easily account for these presuppositions in that God has created us with knowledge of them, and of inborn knowledge of Himself.

Atheists have to borrow all the above presuppositions to argue for atheism, and to even function in the world. This is evidence that no one can live as an atheist. Atheists actually live as if atheism is false, and theism true. Therefore, atheists do not exist. At least atheism must be redefined as being a person who knows that God exists, but denies this for some personal reasons. 

Since atheism is self-contradictory, it is impossible. Claiming to be an atheist is like claiming to be a married bachelor, or like denying oxygen while breathing it to make the claim. 

I shall be glad and open-minded towards any argument against my position.
 
ethang5DeeSilverishGoldNovaZombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
Namo Namah!
Ajit Krishna Dasa



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • ethang5ethang5 150 Pts
    @Ajit_Krishna_Dasa

    Brilliant concise argument. :+1:
    Zombieguy1987SilverishGoldNovaAlofRI
  •  Firstly, even if we accept your argument, your conclusion is false. You are forgetting about the existence of nihilists, these are atheists who doubt everything. You might object to this, so let me explain what atheism is, even though it is pretty self-explanatory. People who are not theists are called a-theists. We know that nihilists are not theists, therefore they are atheists. You conclusion should have been: "Only nihilists can be true atheists."

     But all of your other arguments do not make sense either. You make the same mistake that you are claiming atheists to be making. Let's entertain the idea that without accepting: "laws of logic, truth and knowledge, the validity of our cognitive faculties" we can not be atheists, because every statement we make depends on these presuppositions. What you are forgetting is that this is not exceptional to atheism. Theists, too, can not think without these presuppositions and can not make any conclusion about the existence of god(or anything). Theists have to use their logic before reaching a god, which is unaccounted for at that time. 

     Even if we assume that theists somehow accept god without thinking (yeah, it is impossible), this will not necesarily prove that theists did not make any presuppositions. One could argue that accepting god is a presupposition. 

     Your argument also fails becuse you think atheists have to argue for their disbelief, which is false. The burden of proof lies upon theists to present arguments and proof for god's existence. Atheists do not claim anything. A newly born baby is an atheist, someone who hasn't heard of god is an atheist. Atheism does not need to be an active stance.

     
    AmericanFurryBoyDeeSilverishGoldNovaZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfenethang5OppolzerCYDdhartaAlofRI
  • You know, my best friend is a Christian.

    And whenever I bring up that I’m an atheist he says stuff like this.

    Zombieguy1987Ajit_Krishna_Dasa
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer come here actively, and many of the things that I may have posted in the past (Such as belief in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • If atheists don’t exist then how do I exist?
    SilverishGoldNovaDeePlaffelvohfenAlofRIanonymousdebater
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • If anything it's the opposite way around.

    Atheists understand laws, morals, etc come from humanity and so are ultimately subjective. Nothing wrong with using subjective reasoning to make subjectively valid points.

    On the other hand many theists will try to present their moral code as objective, but ultimately it depends on their subjective reasoning so could never truly be shown to be 
    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    Formal logic was created by the Ancient Greek philosophers, mainly Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It did not exist as a concept before those times. Same goes for other things you mentioned, the concepts of all of them being developed at various points of civilization evolution. ~10,000 years ago none of them existed, and although in practice some moral rules, for example, were developed, there was no basis or understanding behind them. It was just the necessity to survive that drove their emergence.

    As you can see, rigorous science explains all these things very well. Your theory, on the other hand, does not explain anything. You can refer to anything with "god did it", but that is a lazy explanation based on lack of the desire to critically think about the matters and to get to the core of the truth on them.

    "Why is 2+2=4?"
    "Because of the god."

    If you think that this kind of reasoning constitutes rational thought - think again.
    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenOppolzerAlofRI
  • ethang5ethang5 150 Pts
    @AlexOland

    Even nihilists have to borrow all the  presuppositions of the theists. They don't operate as atheists either, they suffer the same logical contradictions of the atheist.

    The OP is not saying that God exists, but that all of us, theists and atheists, live (and must live) as if He does. His point is that only theists live in, and openly  agree with the presuppositions we all make.

    So he's not saying that theists do not make presuppositions, but that only theists have a rational reason for those suppositions, though atheists make them and live by them too.
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • ethang5ethang5 150 Pts
    @SilverishGoldNova


    I can't. After my visa expires, I have to come back to my country, America.

    My request to people like you is, Please leave America.  :+1:
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5ethang5 150 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Again you do it.

    You set up a fake argument, "god did it" and claim it is the OP's argument, then you go ahead and slash the fake argument you just hoisted on him, claim a win for beating the fake argument you made for him.

    It is such a dishonest way to argue.

    >Why is 2+2=4?"
    "Because of the god."

    >If you think that this kind of reasoning.....

    At least you said "If".

    That kind of reasoning was not in the OP's post. It was in your mind.

    But you tried to attributed it to him. You do this all the time. Stop it.

    It is dishonest if you do it knowingly. If you don't know a persons argument, ask them. Stop suggesting an absurd argument for them, and then pretending that suggested argument is really theirs.
    Zombieguy1987DeeAlofRI

  • Theism, on the other hand, can easily account for these presuppositions in that God has created us with knowledge of them, and of inborn knowledge of Himself.
    So, you account for presuppositions with a another presupposition? I see.........
    Zombieguy1987DeeAlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ethang5ethang5 150 Pts
    @Dee

    Not everyone is deceitful enough to have a sock puppet DeeDee.

    You were busted multi accounting with Joseph, don't be a sore loser.

    If you wanted to keep your other account secret, you should not have used the same format, (my reply:.....) And an iPad with the exact same glitch (large spaces in your posts)
    Zombieguy1987
  • @AlexOland

    It is not possible to doubt everything. To state this is a self-contradiction. To doubt certain things has be be presupposed, and these are the same as described in the OP. A nihilist has a worldview, and the building block for this worldview is also the laws of logic, truth and knowledge, the validity of our cognitive faculties, the existence of values and morality, and more. And the nihilistic worldview cannot account for these, but has to borrow them from theism. A nihilist - just like any other atheist - lives as if God exists, and thus nihilism is also self-contradictory.

    A theist certainly must depend on the same presuppositions as atheists, but the theists have an account for their existence, and for our knowing them to be true. Atheists do not. Theists are people who know that they know the presuppositions to be true, because God has revealed this knowledge to them. How do we know that? Answer: Because it is self-contradictory to deny it. As soon as we deny God, we presuppose that we know God. 

    Thinking is not possible without presupposing the truth of certain propositions. But the truth of these propositions cannot be accounted for by atheism, but easily by theism. Theism is the only way to account for them. And thus all atheists must first accept theism to argue for atheism. 

    Atheists has to argue for their worldview. Atheists claim to be able to account for thing without referring to God. They have to think that the existence of any object can be accounted for by some other means than God. Thus they have a burden to lift. 

    Theists can easily lift their burden - by showing how atheism is self-contradictory. 

    You claim that a baby is an atheist. That is a claim, and you must lift the burden of proof. In order to make the claim you presupposed laws of logic, truth and knowledge, the validity of our cognitive faculties, the existence of values and morality, and much more. Please account for these before making claims based upon them. 

    A baby lives as if God exists. It values certain things above others. It navigates the world based on the law of logic, etc. So why should it be an atheist? It might have suppressed the existence of God, but it still lives and breathes as if God exists. 
    AlexOlandAlofRIZombieguy1987
    Namo Namah!
    Ajit Krishna Dasa
  • @Zombieguy1987

    My claim, as per the OP, is that you are not an atheist. Your words and actions testifies to the fact that you accept God - at least subconsciously. 
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
    Namo Namah!
    Ajit Krishna Dasa
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    edited March 14

    Atheists has to argue for their worldview. Atheists claim to be able to account for thing without referring to God. They have to think that the existence of any object can be accounted for by some other means than God. Thus they have a burden to lift. 
    It is the other way around, friend. I do not need to argue anything. It is you who are trying to convince me that some ethereal being called "god" exists. To me, everything is simple: there is the world which functions according to some rules, and that is all there is to it.

    "Subconscious" acceptance of god? What does it mean?

    It never ceases to amaze me just how prone to projection some people are. It does not even cross their minds that other people can genuinely exercise profoundly different ways of thinking.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987AlofRI
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    MayCaesar said:

    Atheists has to argue for their worldview. Atheists claim to be able to account for thing without referring to God. They have to think that the existence of any object can be accounted for by some other means than God. Thus they have a burden to lift. 
    It is the other way around, friend. I do not need to argue anything. It is you who are trying to convince me that some ethereal being called "god" exists. To me, everything is simple: there is the world which functions according to some rules, and that is all there is to it.

    "Subconscious" acceptance of god? What does it mean?

    It never ceases to amaze me just how prone to projection some people are. It does not even cross their minds that other people can genuinely exercise profoundly different ways of thinking.

    But that doesn't mean you're an atheist. Atheism is a specific belief that there is no God, Creator, Supreme Being, etc.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987AlofRI
  • CYDdharta said:

    But that doesn't mean you're an atheist. Atheism is a specific belief that there is no God, Creator, Supreme Being, etc.
    How many time must we point out that atheism is NOT a belief, it's the ABSENCE of such, it is a position regarding a very specific claim, that is: God exists...
    In relation to any other belief (that is not contingent on the idea of "god"), the words Atheism/ist are utterly meaningless... 

    If I say: Unicorn exists and you disagree because evidence for my claim is clearly lacking, could I define you as a A-unicornist?
    Same for Astrology... Could I define you as an A-astrologist if you don't believe in horoscope? An A-leprechaunist?

    A "A-any-belief-you-don't-hold-ist" ??  

    It's shocking that many people still struggle with such basic concepts in 2019... 
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987AlofRIZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdharta said:

    But that doesn't mean you're an atheist. Atheism is a specific belief that there is no God, Creator, Supreme Being, etc.
    How many time must we point out that atheism is NOT a belief, it's the ABSENCE of such, it is a position regarding a very specific claim, that is: God exists...
    In relation to any other belief (that is not contingent on the idea of "god"), the words Atheism/ist are utterly meaningless... 

    If I say: Unicorn exists and you disagree because evidence for my claim is clearly lacking, could I define you as a A-unicornist?
    Same for Astrology... Could I define you as an A-astrologist if you don't believe in horoscope? An A-leprechaunist?

    A "A-any-belief-you-don't-hold-ist" ??  

    It's shocking that many people still struggle with such basic concepts in 2019... 
    It can be either.

    "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    Atheism is based on the idea that there is no reason to consider any gods, because we can explain everything just fine without gods.

    The active opposition to the idea of gods would be better characterised as anti-theism. Atheists, rather, simply are not interested in entertaining these concepts, seeing them as obsolete.

    I do not see the idea that minotaurs exist as relevant. At the same time, I will not go out of my way to demonstrate this idea to be irrational - unless a particular discussion warrants it. If someone genuinely believes in minotaurs, that is great! We need people perpetuating old cultures as a tribute to history. Just do not expect me to take their beliefs seriously.
    So you can call me a-minotaurist. But not anti-minotaurist. There is a strong difference here. 
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    CYDdharta said:

    But that doesn't mean you're an atheist. Atheism is a specific belief that there is no God, Creator, Supreme Being, etc.
    How many time must we point out that atheism is NOT a belief, it's the ABSENCE of such, it is a position regarding a very specific claim, that is: God exists...
    In relation to any other belief (that is not contingent on the idea of "god"), the words Atheism/ist are utterly meaningless... 

    If I say: Unicorn exists and you disagree because evidence for my claim is clearly lacking, could I define you as a A-unicornist?
    Same for Astrology... Could I define you as an A-astrologist if you don't believe in horoscope? An A-leprechaunist?

    A "A-any-belief-you-don't-hold-ist" ??  

    It's shocking that many people still struggle with such basic concepts in 2019... 

    No, that's just wrong.  By that definition, agnostics are atheists, which they most certainly are not.  They are two separate and distinct beliefs.
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5ethang5 150 Pts
    >Atheism is based on the idea that there is no reason to consider any gods, because we can explain everything just fine without gods.

    This idea is extremely illogical. I can explain people getting to work without mass transit, but it is only an idiot who would think that invalidates the existence of busses and trains.

    What is "explain everything without God" even supposed to mean?

    Things can sometimes be explained by more than one phenomenon. And science is far from being able to explain everything.

    The bottom line is that you prefer a non-god explanation simply because you have a bias against God.

    That isn't science or logical.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Agnostics are people who see both the theist and the atheist worldviews are possible and refuse to take a stance, recognising that their knowledge is not sufficient for that.

    Atheists are people who see the theist worldview as irrelevant and unfounded. They also recognise that they cannot know with 100% certainty that there is no god - but, unlike agnostics, they do not recognise the idea as reasonable.

    Let us get back to minotaurs. An atheist would say that, since there is no evidence of minotaurs' existence, there is no reason to assume they exist, and the very notion that they still might exist and, hence, believing in them makes sense is preposterous.
    An agnostic would say that they do not know whether minotaurs exist, and that they might or might not exist, and that taking either stance is wrong.

    Atheists and agnostics have similar views on what *might* be true. They have different views on what is reasonable to assume to be true, however.
    Atheists look at the evidence and see what it suggests. Agnostics look at the evidence and see what does not contradict it. Seemingly subtle difference here, in fact, is quite profound.
    Zombieguy1987

  • the building block for this worldview is also the laws of logic, truth and knowledge, the validity of our cognitive faculties, the existence of values and morality, and more. 
    This is why you lose the argument,;there are no laws of morality, truth, knowledge, etc. There's only subjective opinion.

    You are making claims to objective truth which you can never prove and merely subjectively believe in, making them in-achievable. As atheists view reality subjectively there is no hypocrisy in an atheists having a subjective view of what truth should be or what morality is etc because they do not hold their opinion to be some objective universal truth.
    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Atheists are people who see the theist worldview as irrelevant and unfounded. They also recognise that they cannot know with 100% certainty that there is no god - but, unlike agnostics, they do not recognise the idea as reasonable.

    Really?!?  Then what is the term for those who have no doubt that there is no God?
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • @Ajit_Krishna_Dasa I will only be responding to your first and last paragraph because all the paragraphs in between have been already explained in my first comment, which I think you should read again.

     Firstly, you claim that being a nihilist(doubting everything) is impossible. While this is certainly not true, I will not argue for it because it is not actually important for my case and it would take some time to explain the idea behind it (accounting the fact that you will most certainly object a few times before I am able to communicate it to you).

     "A baby lives as if God exists. It values certain things above others. It navigates the world based on the law of logic, etc. So why should it be an atheist? It might have suppressed the existence of God, but it still lives and breathes as if God exists. "
     
     Okay, let's look at your requirements for considering something to be believing in god: 
    1- It must value certain things above others. (okay, a baby does do that)
    2- It must use logic. (yeah. a baby does, though in a very simple way, use logic.)
    3- ... oh.. that's it. 
     Therefore nearly every somewhat intelligent animal believes in a god. A simple line of code that I can write in python believes in a god. Yeah, the term "believing in god" is somewhat useless if we accept your definition of it (which does not have any basis).

     It still lives and breathes as if god exists? So, every breathing animal in the entire earth believes in a god? 


     You say that accepting god is the only way to account for laws of logic, truth and knowledge, the validity of our cognitive faculties. Well, if we can randomly accept some things to be true, why can not we just accept that laws of logic are true, without even touching the idea of god? What exactly is wrong with that? 

     And, I will say again, theists have to think before they accept god. According to you, thinking does not have a basis without god. Therefore, a person has no way to be a theist. Because in order to think, they need to accept god and in order to accept god, they need to think. So, how exactly did you become a theist? By your own logic, everyone should be atheists. 
    AlofRIMayCaesarZombieguy1987
  • AlofRIAlofRI 247 Pts
    Every theistic argument here leans toward the basic religious doctrine: Submit, Obey, Do Not Question.
    Well, there are some of us that won't/can't be controlled by that directive.

    Do you believe in Zeus or Thor or Neptune? Mars, Venus or Sun Ra?? You reject a thousand "gods", I as an ATHEIST, reject one more than you. That's it. I AM what I AM, and I have no doubt of any kind that religions are as a man named Lucretius said: "All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician and ridiculous to the philosopher."

    Religions cause us to hate others we wouldn't normally hate. As Steven Weinberg said: "Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions." We see that every day, and have for centuries. I have no use for a "boss" that never shows up on the floor where things get done, I have no use for a "god" that never sets a "company policy" that is understood by all.

    During 15 centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been the fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indulgence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity. In both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."  James Madison

    I agree with every word these highly respected people have said. I am an atheist. You can't tell me I don't exist.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Atheists are people who see the theist worldview as irrelevant and unfounded. They also recognise that they cannot know with 100% certainty that there is no god - but, unlike agnostics, they do not recognise the idea as reasonable.

    Really?!?  Then what is the term for those who have no doubt that there is no God?
    I could think of many terms that would characterise such a view, but they would make Debra upset.

    Someone who has no doubt that something they have no information on does not exist is a person with a very rigid and logically fallacious thinking.

    I cannot know with 100% certainty that there are no unicorns in the Universe. In fact, statistically, there are pretty likely to be unicorns somewhere, as this Universe has hundreds billions galaxies, most of which have dozens billions star systems, most of which likely have dozens planets and their moons.
    One who has no doubt that there are no unicorns anywhere in the Universe is just as irrational, as one who has no doubt that there is no life in the Universe outside Earth.

    At the same time, seriously talking about unicorns outside the scope of fiction is pretty pointless. One does not need to be an atheist to understand that.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987AlexOland
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts

    A baby lives as if God exists. It values certain things above others. It navigates the world based on the law of logic, etc. So why should it be an atheist? It might have suppressed the existence of God, but it still lives and breathes as if God exists. 
    This is a very weak argument. Valuing certain things above others does not mean living as if god exists. Every single living being with a brain values certain things above others. It comes from the very demands of their physiology. If I do not eat, I die, hence I value food very high. But if I do not punch a wall as hard as I can, no negative consequences follow, hence I do not value punching a wall much.

    Where exactly does god enter the equation? Do you think a child cries when her toy breaks because she "lives as if god exists", or because she is sad that her toy is gone?
    Zombieguy1987AlexOland
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    MayCaesar said:

    I could think of many terms that would characterise such a view, but they would make Debra upset.

    Someone who has no doubt that something they have no information on does not exist is a person with a very rigid and logically fallacious thinking.

    You do enjoy making your posts needlessly (and senselessly) verbose.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the proper term is atheist.
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    i am an atheist....there are thousands of gods...i CAN'T disprove them all.....HOWEVER disproving jesus as god is easy
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited March 24
    @Ajit_Krishna_Dasa

    Nihilism isn't always the outcome of a philosophical world view, it can come about from extreme disillusionment. People who have given up on any meaning in life and find no use for it can have the exact same feelings as people who arrived at those same nihilistic conclusions, but the former didn't come to those conclusions by way of philosophy, they got there because of despair. There's is not a worldview, it's the lack of one!!!
    AlexOlandZombieguy1987
  • @piloteer Exactly, I could not have worded that better. "Nihilism" is just a label we use to call those people. The definition of nihilism is the non-nihilists' observations of the nihilists. Nihilists do not actually say that nothing can be known, they claim nothing. But, as outsiders, we can claim that nihilism is the view that nothing can be known and that is what the definition of nihilism is. 
    piloteer
  • Hi!

    So far my conclusions is that atheism and agnosticism are self-contradictory for the following reasons: 

    Atheism and agnosticism are dependent on presuppositions that cannot be accounted for by atheism itself. These are presuppositions about the existence of the laws of logic, truth and knowledge, the validity of our cognitive faculties, the existence of values and morality, and more.

    Theism, on the other hand, can easily account for these presuppositions in that God has created us with knowledge of them, and of inborn knowledge of Himself.

    Atheists have to borrow all the above presuppositions to argue for atheism, and to even function in the world. This is evidence that no one can live as an atheist. Atheists actually live as if atheism is false, and theism true. Therefore, atheists do not exist. At least atheism must be redefined as being a person who knows that God exists, but denies this for some personal reasons. 

    Since atheism is self-contradictory, it is impossible. Claiming to be an atheist is like claiming to be a married bachelor, or like denying oxygen while breathing it to make the claim. 

    I shall be glad and open-minded towards any argument against my position.
     
    So atheists are Christians, they just don't know they are?

    Sand
  • Ajit_Krishna_Dasa said in part:

    Atheists actually live as if atheism is false, and theism true. Therefore, atheists do not exist. At least atheism must be redefined as being a person who knows that God exists, but denies this for some personal reasons.
    If a person feels like they know God exists but denies it to the rest of the world due to some personal reasons then that isn't Atheism, at least in the definition that I ascribe to which is quite simply "without/lack of belief."

    The actual logical position in regards to God's existence is to not infer anything about the idea until any evidence comes to light giving clause to make any inferences at all. This position can't be self-contradictory as it is epistemologically neutral.


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch