One Minute Cases

Poverty

One minute case for the gold standard/commodity standard

One minute case for the abolition of central banks

The One Minute Case for an open border?

If companies are allowed to hire “illegals” but at the same wage as “Americans”, the incentive to hire based on origin becomes irrelevant – employment becomes driven by competition among potential employees.

Against gun control.

To what email should I send an essay?

Minimum wage.

How about discussing redefining marriage to strike restrictions based on gender. In that one minute case, you would also have to decide if restrictions based on number, age and blood relatives could be kept, or would they also be swept away by courts ruling that descrimination is unacceptable. What makes one kind of descrimination a travesty and other kinds proper?

Would not the site be better if each topic had a for / against tab? E.g. One-Minute Case for Capitalism, should have provision for the opposing viewpoint One-Minute Case against Capitalism

I agree with Srini. One-sided arguments are no good. I know of course that we have the option of going elsewhere for converse opinions, but I do think that this site would be much better with arguments on both sides. Great site already, but with that, it’d be even better.

Is this where I suggest topics?
I’ve got a few.
Minimum wage, veganism, vegetarianism, social networking sites.

The One Minute Case against the Existence of God

A religion is an organized system of belief, most often assuming the existence of a higher power such as a supernatural almighty deity or an ultimate truth, first designed to enlighten humanity on the act of creation and produce specific prophecies that will come true if certain requirements are met. This case argues that supernatural deities do not exist, which entails the fact that all major religions are false and outdated phenomena outstripped by science, serving little other use than hampering additional scientific progress.

The cosmological argument

Some religious individuals argue that whatever begins to exist has a cause and since nothing causes itself, there has to be a First Cause, namely God. There are several objections to this argument, some of them being as following;
- What caused the First Cause? By making use of the cosmological argument one presupposes that an uncaused effect exists, enabling it to cause a chain of effects without being caused itself. Seeing that the argument is reliant upon the premise that all effects have a cause it is in consequence invalid.
- The First Cause is by no means equal to a deity. Even though the origin of the universe remains scientifically unexplained, it doesn’t justify supernatural religious claims.

The Teleological argument [Intelligent Design]

This argument states that some phenomena are too complex, or too apparently purposeful, to have occurred randomly. Therefore, these phenomena must have been designed by an intelligent or purposeful being (God).
- Who designed the designer? If an intelligent designer only is able to design irreducibly complex units, then an even more intelligent designer is necessary to design the original designer. This entails an infinite chain of designers. To counter this counter-argument some individuals make use of the cosmological argument. However, as explained above, this argument fails because it omits why a designer can be undersigned while the universe cannot.

William Paley’s watchmaker analogy makes use of this argument, and is to this date one of the most famous teleological arguments. He argues that there are structures which cannot function unless all substructures are present. By asserting that each substructure constitutes no benefit alone, evolutionary theory is unable to explain the substructures presence. Since the substructures presence cannot be explained, the whole structures presence cannot be explained either. Counter-arguments are as following:
- There is a probability that all substructures came into existence simultaneously.
- Substructures may have changed in function. A gradual replacement by several advantageous substructures’ function can lead to the evolution of structures claimed to be irreducibly complex.

The omnipotence paradox

Most, if not all, monotheistic religions claim the existence of an omnipotent God. This argument leaves the concept of omnipotence as a mere paradox unable to exist in a logical universe. If a deity is in fact omnipotent, then he is able to create a rock he himself cannot lift. Since he cannot lift the rock he just created he is not omnipotent.

Argument from free will

All monotheistic religions claim their god to be omniscient, and at the same time claim to have been given free will by the very same god. These two concepts are incompatible. Here is why: An omniscient being knows everything, including the future will of his supposed free willed- designees. Since the will is already known, it cannot be free at the same time.

Other[inductive] arguments state that a complete being (God) must also be dead or non-existing in order to be fully complete. Furthermore, some conclude that since most theistic religions eventually were regarded as untrue, all theistic religions are most likely to be untrue. Stephen F. Roberts formulated this beautifully by saying:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I believe that man has the right to believe in other ways of government besides capitalism and take action should greed prevail to inhibit his rights as an individual.

I’d like to see, more than anything else, a one minute case against Anarcho-Capitalism / Capitalist-Anarchism

Personally, I think that corruption amongst public officials is the most serious issue of our time, certainly here in the UK. What use is the law if our lawmakers are on the make? How can we be sure that our aid money is being properly distributed and not being used fraudulently to fill pockets?