The Instigator
MarkDenniz
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
moneystacker
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Bird cannot fly

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
moneystacker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 625 times Debate No: 64062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

MarkDenniz

Pro

Birds are animals in our world. You might not know this but humans are also animals as we have evolved from mokeys. Because we are both animals and we cannot fly, neither can birds!

When you see birds 'in the sky' it is in fact an optical illusion. They are not actually up there. What you see is the projection of the birds who are actually on the ground. the government creates these illusions to control society. They use projectors such as Dell or NEC, to project images of birds swimming into the sky.

This is an extreme example of conspiracies within governments all around the world.
moneystacker

Con

my whole debate is just a response to what I have just read... I accepted this debate because I belive my opponent has one of the following issues
1. has a few mental issues and needs therapy
2. is high
3. watches to much conspiracy theories

now my "response case"

Intro I preety much won this debate basically by pointing out that birds have been alive for millions of years and the U.S.A government for about 218 years but I am going to go deeper to try and help my opponent gain his sanity. I am serious if he isn't joking about this then he needs help, if he is then never mind.

I will not waste time researching and posting proof and stuff so please forgive me for that just not worth it on a argument like this. I'm going to go in baby steps just incase my opponents mind is really off and needs help.

Cont 1: A projector
A project defined by bing dictornary is this: an object that is used to project rays of light, especially an apparatus with a system of lenses for projecting slides or film onto a screen www.bing.com. My opponent has to prove that there is a screen or film big enough to cover the entire earth. That is the only way possible for all the birds on the earth to be illusions. I am very sure he couldn't even provide one big enough to cover a house but yeah.

Cont 2: What a bird is
A bird defined by bing is this : warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, and a beak and (typically) by being able to fly. So a bird actually is a living animal, which takes out his argument about it being a projection. Also a bird can fly as you see. Now opponent what you must understand is the abilities of a bird. Some like penguins can swim, some can fly, some like Ostriches' can just walk/run, I am aware that those are interesting abilities but I am sure a bird doesn't't have the ability or influence to control society. Since we humans can do all those things and more (we can fly on planes) we technically have more power over birds.

My opponents first argument: Birds are animals in our world. You might not know this but humans are also animals as we have evolved from monkeys. Because we are both animals and we cannot fly, neither can birds!

Response: First of all my opponent must understand that not everyone believes in evolution, I don't and not everyone accepts it its like a 50/50 thing so I wouldn't use evolution as a theory in debate since you can't 100% prove it and haven't done it. Also um the main reason you lost with this argument is because... I don't know how to break it to you but birds are not mammals so they shouldn't have our qualities. I also don't see how monkeys tie in with humans or birds I don't see where you were trying to get there if you actually had a good point worth considering explain it in next round. And again even if you believe in evolution you would know birds are not mammals so since you don't even know your own theory you can't use it.

My opponent states: this is an example of conspiracies in the government
Responses: My opponent try's to compare this to conspiracy theories but this is so insane that it couldn't even fit into that category. Some conspiracy theories are at least persuasive and believable or worth considering, this however isn't.
Debate Round No. 1
MarkDenniz

Pro

Replying to your arguments which you have FAILED to post sources to.

1: Projectors can be projected onto the dust particles and other particles in the air/atmosphere. You might not know this but there IS stuff up there!

2. A bird is defined as you say it is because the definition has been created around the illusion of a bird! If you re-read my first VALID points, I never state that birds are not living animals. Birds ARE living animals and this is used as one of my points. Birds are real animals however, as you will see in the title of this debate, the point is they cannot fly!

3. Although not everyone believes in evolution, it is commonly viewed as the correct theory of creation by a large majority of modern societies. You have gone wildly off topic by talking about religion vs science.

4. This is a typical response from someone who is blind to a conspiracy. It is evident to me that you are INCAPABLE of acknowledging the existence of this conspiracy because of your narrow mindedness.
moneystacker

Con

Here is my opponents first argument that I am trying not to laugh at. He says I don't have sources for anything. FIrst of all I have 2 sources for my definitions. Second my opponent believes I need a source for the following, birds are not mammals, penguins can swim, humans are more powerful then birds.

I will let the people who vote decide weather this is common sense or not but I learned this stuff in middle school I don't know about you guys but yeah.

I will extend my argument by pointing out that my opponent doesn't have a single source yet he try's to say I need sources and yet I provided 2 for definitions. So since my opponent hasn't posted a single source I don't see why its fair for me to have to post sources anyway to show where I found arguments and allow him to find holes. Since my arguments are mostly common sense arguments this isn't a problem but what I am saying is it's not fair in general for me to have to give sources and allow him to find holes in arguments but he doesn't provide any for me to do the same.

I will attack the rest of his arguments

1. He says this, Projectors can be projected onto the dust particles and other particles in the air/atmosphere. You might not know this but there IS stuff up there! First of all this is one major example of him not providing a source and 2nd he didn't prove how a projector can cover the whole earth and that one of that ability is in existence. He hasn't shown how a projector could project all the birds in the U.S. let alone all the birds in a city. Also he hasn't proven that birds aren't real while I have with the definition I got from Bing. It says they are alive and warm-blooded while he doesn't provide a definition for what a bird is so you must go by mine.

2. My opponent try to claim that he is backing up birds are real, guys even if you buy this consider my earlier argument
birds have been alive for millions of years and the U.S.A government for about 218 years. Also my opponents consider all the birds you see flying, I doubt America has the time or money to project all the flying birds we see everyday.

THis is his next argument:
Although not everyone believes in evolution, it is commonly viewed as the correct theory of creation by a large majority of modern societies. You have gone wildly off topic by talking about religion vs science.

My response: I never bought up the world religion to be honest lol idk where you got that from. Unless you are assuming most who don't believe in this theory are religious which is true but a good percent simply don't believe in it because it sounds stupid, and if you do believe in it then birds can fly because the scientist who back up evolution believe in birds, dinosaurs, and virtually every animal today.

My opponent challenges my views on conspiracy theories: I believe in a lot of those so I am not narrow minded, I believe bush backed up a NWO and went to a secret school and did rituals, I believe in aliens, I believe that Thomas Jefferson did some evil party acts, I believe that the federal reserve is evil, don't tell me I am narrow minded cause I am not.

COnclusion: I have won for the following reasons.

1. My opponent hasn't proven a project is real that has the ability to project extremely realistic flying birds and is big enough to cover the U.S., or he could prove there are a ton of projectors with this ability around the U.S. but he hasn't.

2. HE hasn't shown a logical reason why the government would do this. There is no gain from the government making us see images in the air. Birds have no effect on the economy or the governments power whatsoever and until my opponent shows some sort of benefit then birds do fly.
Debate Round No. 2
MarkDenniz

Pro

I will reply to your two concluding points as you've pretty much just repeated yourself in the rest of them.

1. My opponent hasn't proven a project is real that has the ability to project extremely realistic flying birds and is big enough to cover the U.S., or he could prove there are a ton of projectors with this ability around the U.S. but he hasn't.

My reply: http://www.ebay.com.au...

Once again your narrow mindedness has been your worst enemy. You have only thought of projectors inside the U.S., i'm guessing you are an American and as a typical patriotic American, you fail to acknowledge other countries having resources your country might use.

2. HE hasn't shown a logical reason why the government would do this. There is no gain from the government making us see images in the air. Birds have no effect on the economy or the governments power whatsoever and until my opponent shows some sort of benefit then birds do fly.

Your exaggeration of the word 'HE' implies I'm male, dont jump to conclusions so quickly, once again, narrow mindedness.

You do not see the logical reason because thats how you have been brought up in your society and the government has tricked you into believing this. Governments control their society's to monitor behavement and to test theories and tools. The flying of birds is simply a so called test for greater things in the future.

Concluding.
I have won this debate as my opponent has failed to acknowledge his narrow minded approach to this conspiracy and his failure to do so allows the government to win against society once again.

OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR MINDS
moneystacker

Con

I will just reply to what my opponent brings up. He provides me a link for the project he claims can produce objects with a high ability... I would excpt it to be some governmental website or something for such a useful thing that is considered "secret" since "the government makes birds fly" but it's on a public website on ebay for 29 bucks. Not only does it look kind of old but also since it is that cheap I am sure it isn't that good even on regular projector standards.

My opponents next argument is that he means the world projects images of birds to "control" there people. I guess he is suggesting all are part of a NWO and working together to fool us but if this was true all of the countries would be allies.

My opponent then complains about me using the word He which I apologize you were right I shouldn't use he cause you could be a girl, but that doesn't get you anywhere in todays round was just a misunderstanding.

Again I showed my opponent I am not narrow minded and open to conspiracy theories that I will post again, big foot is real, I believe bush backed up a NWO and went to a secret school and did rituals, I believe in aliens, I believe that Thomas Jefferson did some evil party acts, I believe that the federal reserve is evil, don't tell me I am narrow minded cause I am not. I also believe JFK got shot because of his arguments against private banking and federal reserve. I believe they had a role in his assassination.

Voters:

1. My opponent has yet to prove what the government gains in power from these so called "projector birds" cause if there is no gain this obviously isn't real.

2. common sense even says birds are alive flying birds are owned by some people and scientist have studied them, if it was projected as a image we wouldn't be able to have physical contact with the bird.

3. My opponent hasn't attacked any of my core arguments such as, my definition of a bird from bing, birds being alive for a while, no gain from government making fake birds, and that no bird can overpower a human.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by crushboy79 2 years ago
crushboy79
Pro is retarded
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
Looooooool
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
MarkDennizmoneystackerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct for the abuse con gave in r1 but also because pro legit made me laugh hard in r1... arguments because pro didn't meet BOP Sources to Pro because of the link S&G bad for both to some degree. Actually after some thought I removed sources because the ebay source was proving nothing and unreliable.