I hate Kant.

Nice post Evan. Lets start at the top. "I hate the idea of Kant. He's dead, so I don't have to bother hating him personally." I take this as a concession that you don't hate Kant the person which is half the battle. Whether or not you 'hate' his writings is going to depend on your ability to produce specific writings that generate a strong emotional response from you. Until you have done so I'm sort of forced to assume that no such source for the hatred exists and that it is indeed a form of the "hatred crossfire" I described in round 1. Once these sources have been described and presented (which I'm assuming you'll do with the third round) we'll have to assess the emotional reaction itself to ensure that you haven't mischaracterized the emotion. Keep in mind the definition of hate that I presented. "He was in my (admittedly ill-informed) opinion, an arrogant prick. Plus, if I understood half of what my intro to philosophy teacher was saying about him, he was full of it." You have yet to present any real justification for this kind of judgment of Kant. You offer Nietzsche's condemnation (beyond good and evil?) of Kant but after reading it I think it's more of a disapproval with how it has been used and sometimes distorted to serve the interests of Christian theologians and also his "laborious and venerable" writing style. But is Nietzsche's discontent for Kant justify your own? You even point out that you find Nietzsche to be a prick as well, what is to make me assume that you agree with his assessment of Kant? If anything your referencing Nietzsche instead of offering your own reason for having a severe and passionate dislike for Kant suggests that no such reason really exists! I think you know what your talking about but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have exposed yourself enough to Kant and his ideas to develop the kind of passionate dislike that the sentence, "I hate Kant" implies. I think this is a cultural phenomenon where the verb 'hate' has become watered down. We shouldn't forget that true hate is a dangerous thing that can manifest itself in a destructive manner and has fueled some of the most heinous of human acts in history. Really you have the burden of proof of this debate to generate the kind of reasons that could possibly contribute to such a strong negative reaction. If you really pick through your answer you have yet to do so. "He lead the modern day charge of philosophy into nonsense." Explanation please. Many would disagree. "He represents subjectivism, which I abhor." Subjectivism in it's simplest sense is the belief that subjective experience is fundamental to all measure and law. I have yet to see how this in itself is enough to prompt such a strong reaction from you. Is there an implication of subjectivism that is particularly troubling to you? Do you disagree? Is this in itself justify your hatred? If so, I would contend that hatred cannot be based exclusively on the presence of disagreement. It's healthy to disagree and reasonable counter points should be encouraged and debated. "I admit the dominance of the intellect over emotions, I don't see any practical reason for my intellect to intervene here." In the first round I questions the origins of the hate and the intellect that supports it. Here you appear to be admitting that your hate is purely emotional and is in no way directed by your intellect or rationale. This again suggests that the motivation for the hate is fundamentally flawed and inherently misguided which would also refute your contention. It wouldn't have to prove that no hate exists but instead that the hate is misguided and in no way represents a tangible direct distaste for Kant. "Anyway, I mostly posted this topic to see if anyone would actually take it. Good luck refuting my subjective emotion, though." Seemed like fun to me. Check out some of my other debates. I like debating points that seem sort of indefensible. I'm not terribly concerned with winning, this kind of stuff is fun for me. See you in the third round! -connor