Are ghosts real?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
| Started: | 2/20/2012 | Category: | Miscellaneous |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 604 times | Debate No: | 21303 |
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)
 Pro The media has proven to display the truth throughout history in that it also provides the news. News is unbiased, and informative. Therefore, if ghosts are on the TV, and the TV is reliable in that it provides news, ghosts must be real.  Con Thank you, Pro, for reminding me why I don't have cable. My opponent's arguments can be broken down like this: 1. Ghosts are shown on TV shows. 2. Everything shown on TV is real. 3. Therefore, Ghosts are real. The first premise is not in dispute, but the second definitely is. He explains his curiously horrible second premise with a sub-argument: 1. If TV broadcasts truthful, unbiased news, then everything shown on TV is true. 2. TV broadcasts truthful, unbiased news. 3. Therefore, everything shown on TV is true. Even leniently ignoring the "truthful, unbiased" bit (I'm looking at you, FOX), this argument still crumbles. The first premise of this argument is an error in inductive reasoning. It assumes that because a (relatively small) portion of everything shown on TV is true, then literally everything shown on TV is true. Logically, we know this is not necessarily true, as such a limited testing group cannot be extrapolated to account for everything (ie, Every girl I've ever met has been single; this must mean EVERY girl in THE ENTIRE WORLD is single, right? No...). And realistically, we know this is not true, because we know TV is a primary source for much fiction. In conclusion, vote Con, or I will lose all faith in humanity. |
 |
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
| prettymuchpro | DakotaKrafick | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: "In conclusion, vote Con, or I will lose all faith in humanity." All i needed to hear, i gave him a mercy point
Vote Placed by Maikuru 1 year ago
| prettymuchpro | DakotaKrafick | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's point is baseless assumption. Con dismantles it.
Vote Placed by phantom 1 year ago
| prettymuchpro | DakotaKrafick | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: "News is unbiased, and informative." Yuze be trolling?!?!
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
| prettymuchpro | DakotaKrafick | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is flawed. Not everything on TV is real. Just because ghosts are on a TV show then it's real? So you say superman is real just because he's on TV?
-facepalm-