The Instigator
Madgirl707
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Isaac77
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Are vampires real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Isaac77
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 62425
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Madgirl707

Pro

I believe vampires are real because of the fact that the stories must have been pasted down for years for a reason. The tales of Vampires have been told for centuries, people who have died and Been reborn into blood thirsty hunters. These myths must have come from somewhere. It is almost impossible to fabricate a creature in such detail and have enough people to believe it that people were burned or staked for it as a crime.

If the legends are fake then where did they come from? And why do so many people believe it?
Isaac77

Con

I will first respond to your comments before making my case in terms of science and reason against the motion in latter rounds. Firstly, people pass down stories for a number of reasons, for entertainment purposes in a time when many people could not read nor write, or more likely that people really believed that these myths were correct. It is human nature to question and learn about the world and these stories are just one of the ways that people share their knowledge about such folklore which scared and fascinated them, as is seen in the plethora of myths in traditions that have existed throughout history. These myths originated in Slavic culture, with no associations, contrary to popular belief, with Valid the impaler. This slavic mysticism that you accept comes in addition to a whole host of demons, deities and spiritualism as these early people struggled to understand concepts such as life after death and the soul, intertwining with european culture as these populations spread.
Debate Round No. 1
Madgirl707

Pro

Next, I will start by answering the statement placed In the comment section by General_Grievous. Yes, the human body can not survive on blood alone but that would most likely Change if the body was dead.
Although, there is no strong evidence to prove that vampires do or do not exsist, I thank Craighawley215 for bringing the ruler Vlad III to my attention. The ruler drank blood from his victims as he believed it would give him powers, some of which were more strength and better hearing.
This backs up the legends of Vampires and their super abilities said to be caused from the blood of their victims.
Isaac77

Con

As I explained before, the connection between vampire folklore and Vlad the impaler is a fallacy; popularised due to the count being the name on which Bram Stokers horror novel Dracula was based. Accusations that "The ruler drank blood from his victims as he believed it would give him powers" is also false; in fact his prominence grew due to the impaling technique he used to scare his enemies and to enforce the laws in addition to a reputation for cruelty and sadism - brought about by Vlad and his brother being captured from their home by the ottoman empire at the age of 13. Your response to General_Grievous" comment was also incorrect as if the body was dead, as you state, it would simply rot and decay leaving nothing but bones and worm-food. Physicists Costas Efthimiou and Sohang Gandhi published a paper explaining why the existence of vampires was a mathematical impossibility; explaining by virtue of geometric progression how vampires would quickly deplete their entire food supply.
Debate Round No. 2
Madgirl707

Pro

True, he may not have bit and drank the blood of his victim's. But things change over time for entertainment purposes or to stop people from knowing the truth. Tales of Vampires have existed for decades, so long that it is definitely changed.
Most things in books or films are made up for example the twilight series,in these books the Vampires do not burn but sparkle in the sunlight. My point is that the way rules Vlad III drunk his victims blood could be the factual way a vampire drinks th blood of his/her victim. Think about it if vampires bit their victims humans would have known by now however if they were drinking the blood after the victims dead, who would notice.
I do believe that vampires exsist but not as movies or books present them. A true vampire drinks blood to stay alive and is stronger and faster than the natural human as they don't need to breath making it so they never have to stop running helping them to develop speed.
Thank you
Isaac77

Con

First I'd like to iron out some discrepancies within your idea of a vampire, blood cannot be used as a food source, there is no reason to consume it unless to keep the vampire from rotting, in which case, the vampire wouldn't be dead. You're right to say this is a belief because their is no more evidence in support of this supernatural entity than there is for Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; even with a shared burden of proof, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet I have been provided with none. I have explained why vampires are mathematically impossible, which is coupled with the Anthropancy principle, which states that vampires non-existence is necessary for our existence; we exist, therefore vampires don't. What you propose also has severe repercussions in that the whole of natural biology is disproved, a feat only possible with the existence of some magical realm; an idea that Ochams Razor does not take kindly to.

Think rationally, Vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Isaac77 2 years ago
Isaac77
That's Interesting Craighawley215 and thanks for the comment, Ive not heard about that one myself so i couldn't verify it - however a lot of people in the comment section of that article say it is a rumour spread about by his enemies.
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
Isaac77, he may not have drank blood in a way familiarized by vampirism, but his practice was to eat amongst freshly impaled victims, and then he would dip his bread into the blood that collected from the bodies.
http://listverse.com...
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
Not planning to accept, but vampires have two very distinct origins, one of which is folklore, accompanied by some early mortician misunderstandings.
The folklore comes from different phenomena of decomposing bodies. At one point, the concept of the living dead was introduced. The theory was that dead people were able to come back to life by gorging themselves on blood. This was speculated because the decomposing features of bodies seemed flush with blood, and the gases made the bodies seem engorged, and even caused postmortem moaning in some cases. Furthermore, the decomposing fingers exposed fresh nail beds which suggested regrowth, while the hair of dead individuals sometimes continued to grow for days or weeks after death. So it really was influenced greatly by misconceptions about body decomposition. That isn't to say that there was some unnatural phenomena to support the concept of vampirism, but there is no hard evidence for it.

However, the biggest case of support for vampirism comes from legendary ruler, Vlad III, "the Impaler" Tepes, of the House of Draculesti. Vlad Tepes is the inspiration for Count Dracula, because he was known to drink from the blood of his enemies in the belief that this would grant him power. He was a feared and hated ruler in his time, and as his infamy spread, his reputation darkened. The result, with some literary flair, is what leads us to Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Posted by General_Grievous 2 years ago
General_Grievous
The human body is unable to survive on solely blood. Your liver and kidneys would wither away from lack of water.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
Madgirl707Isaac77
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were very weak. His argument would suggest that fairies, pixies, leprechauns and unicorns etc. are all real, simply because they can't have been conceived simply as part of someone's imagination. Con made rational counters to Pro, who resorted to non-meaningful conjecturing. This one goes to Con.
Vote Placed by a_mysterious_stranger 2 years ago
a_mysterious_stranger
Madgirl707Isaac77
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: No sources, or evidence to support either claims. However, con was more logical.