The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Bob the Magic Fairy Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,010 times Debate No: 65111
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Bob the Magic Fairy: A creature who hangs around in peoples closets when they are not home. He likes to trash the place and make a mess, but once he senses that someone is close by he disappears and magically erases all traces of his ever having been there.

Burden of Proof: In a forum discussion about the BoP structure of this debate Con stated: "If we plan to have a concise debate which attempts to investigate and find the correct answer, then the BoP is on both".

Therefore as Con's statement implies there is a correct answer to this question, we will investigate it to find out what that answer is. I will be tasked with proving that BTMF exists. Con will be tasked with proving that BTMF does not exist.

Rules: First round for acceptance only. Standard debate rules apply.


Yes, there is definitely truth embodied in a correct answer (logic 101 yo!). However, it seems that Pro disregards epistemology completely when he interrupted my statement.
Nonetheless, this sounds like a fun debate. I wish my opponent good luck.

Debate Round No. 1


Considering the nature of the being that I am tasked with proving exists, I will have to begin this debate by conceding that I will not be able to uphold my burden of proof. The existence of this being is irresolvable as far as I can see, and therefore no argument I make will affirm it.

Note however that the burden of proof in this debate is shared, and thus Con has an equal burden to prove the non-existence of BTMF. Clearly I cannot get the victory here, but if Con cannot uphold his burden to prove BTMF does not exist then he can't get the victory either and this debate should be scored a tie since neither side upheld their burden.

Good Luck Con.


My opponent concedes his right to be able to make arguments for his case. I accept his concession.

I, however, am reporting to duty to lay siege against opponents (okay, one opponent) of my resolution.

I shall use this definition which "sounds reasonable" ("not urban dictionary").

Definition of FAIRY

: a mythical being of folklore and romance usually having diminutive human form and magic powers

1- Impossibility

A way to understand the first part of BTMF's description is:

1. When people are not home
2. BTMF is in their closet

This is a contradiction as we are talking about a singular organism (clones do not count, also magic=/= chakra). A physical finite humanoid (human form) cannot occupy millions of space at the same time.
Therefore, the concept is impossible to begin with.

2- Fairies do not exist

This is probably the first among the first things you think when you hear about BTMF. Coincidence? I think not.
There is strong inductive evidence to believe that fairies do not exist; through the long human history, we should expect to see evidence of these humanoids, their villages, waste, bones, pictures, lots of credible testimonies, etc. just like we can have for even small critters. Therefore, there is a very high chance inductively that fairies do not exist.

3- Falsified

*labcoat and monotone voice on* A video camera and sound recorders were placed inside and outside closets within a registered house whose owned was asked to leave, and the live feed was observed outside the house by a team of professional and trained experts (I reserve the right to call people "professional", "trained" and "expert"). Nothing interesting happened (wish I've seen paint dry instead; sometimes you can swear you saw some paint move), despite the supposed magic only activating once humans are close by. *labcoat and monotone voice off*

This experiment was actually replicated dozens of times in houses of rich people or people have reasons to install security measures.
Therefore, the BTMF is falsified.

4- Bob & implausibility

A fairy is bad enough, but a magical fairy is even worse, a magical fairy named bob is an abomination.

As you can see from the chart above, a fairy not restricted by a name is immensely more plausible than a fairy named “Kate” (short for "Bob").

Therefore, a magical fairy named... Bob is extremly unlikely.

5- Appeal to bible

In the bible, we have unicorn, leviathans, dragons, behemoths, cockatrices, gryphons, nephilims, satyrs. Regardless of linguistic development and metaphors, you'd think a fairy which repeatedly breaks into people's homes and casts magic that is almost reality altering would be mentioned, no?

Bottom line: So you are a Christian? Good. Then you know who to vote for *wink*.

Debate Round No. 2


1. Impossibility

Con is trying to argue that BTMF is logically impossible by redefining him. The definition states that BTMF is in people’s closets when they are not home. Con interprets this to mean that he is in the closet of everyone who is not home all at the same time. This is not standard English. If someone told you that they like to steal people’s cars out of their driveways, you wouldn’t need them to clarify that they only do this one car at a time. That’s common sense. Cons definition and therefore argument does not apply to the subject of this debate.

2. Fairies do not exist

It doesn’t matter whether this is your first inclination to believe when reading the title. If Con’s position is so reasonable that he doesn’t even have to argue it for you to accept it, then he has no excuse for not being able to present a valid case to support it.

Con moves on by attempting to argue that “absence of evidence = evidence of absence”. However, this requires us to expect evidence to be present in the event that the claim is true in order to work, and if this expectation cannot be established the argument fails. For example if one claims that there is no life in the Andromeda Galaxy, he cannot cite a lack of evidence as support for his claim because there is no reason we would expect evidence to be available to us. Because of this, the argument doesn’t work and is therefore useless in our attempts to answer the question.

This is basically what Con is doing. A being who is magical, can sense when others are nearby, and uses his magic to erase all traces of his existence is clearly a powerful being who does not wish for his existence to be known. So to assume any evidence would be left behind is not reasonable.

But Con’s errors are even more profound, as he begins talking about fairy villages, lack of fairy remains, etc… The definition does not mention anything about BTMF’s family, origins, or length of time on earth, so Con is adding to the definition in order to argue against the things he added, again. There is no reason to make such assumptions, so none of Cons refutations are warranted and they do not address the actual existence of the being in question.

3. Falsified

Con is again arguing against his re-definition of BTMF as an entity in everyone’s homes all at the same time which is not the case. Ruling him out of a few rich people’s closets does not falsify him. You would need to set up cameras in every home in the world in order to pull this off. I also remind Con that since he has the ability to magically erase all traces of his existence, there is no reason to assume that this ability is limited to what is in the closet.

4. Bob & Implausibility

The rate of usage of the name says nothing about whether he exists. I have a friend named Bob. Cons chart gives us no reason to assume I am lying.

5. Appeal to the bible

Wow, really Con?

The bible is a 2,000 year old book. Con needs to substantiate it as a valid source of information on future events before any appeals to it can even be considered, otherwise he is just saying “vote for me since you already agree with me”. Again, whether you agree with him before the debate is irrelevant to whether he has upheld his burden.

Second, even then there is no reason to believe the bible would necessarily mention this. We are talking about an entity that did not necessarily exist at the time and has purposely shielded his existence from us. It has no effect on our lives, so there is no reason to expect it would be mentioned.

Third, I would bet that if anyone searched hard enough one could find a passage that may in fact have been speaking about this. Of course we don’t know for sure since most passages are extremely vague.

So sorry but no, the fact that you may be a Christian does not mean Con deserves your vote. He needs to earn that with argument.


Nothing Con has said remotely proves his claim that BTMF does not exist. His case at best, refutes my burden of proving that he does exist. But I already conceded this in the beginning of the debate so we have so far gotten nowhere, therefore neither side at this point has upheld their burden.

Vote Tie.


1- Impossibility

Pro confuses interruption with redefinition; when I accepted the debate I had an interruption in mind. If anything, it is Pro's fault for not adding a restrictive clause or a comment that points at his interruption (oops, I mean redefinition!). He had the opportunity to compose his resolution and description at his leisure, he doesn't have the right to "clarify" what he meant after an argument was made especially since he had two rounds to do so, am I supposed to read his mind? He should have been prepared to defend all interruptions, it is bad conduct to try to modify the definitions in the middle of the debate.
Where did Pro say that he is going to specify what he means in Round 3? The description was open to interruption, and now Pro is suddenly saying that it is something else. This is dreadful conduct that goes against the common sense interruption; who is going to investigate the rhetoric and use of omission when you are talking about a freaking magic fairy? Ain't nobody got time for that; you just fill in the blanks, and that I did automaticly with my common sense. Pro is reaching too hard.

I am arguing that BTMF does not exist. Pro had the obligation to prove that he does, however he lost his ability to do so. The burden is shared.

My opponent have not provided a rebuttal to my point regarding the impossibility of BTMF other than semantics three quarters through the debate and tongue twisters, therefore we have to assume that he concedes the point, and thus forfeits the debate.

2- Fairies do not exist

Pro attempts to go all Saruman on me and craft an illusion that my argument is from ignorance. I have clearly used modus tollens or denying the consequence [If A then B, not B, therefore not A] which is the standard form of empirical falsification.

The definition I have provided for fairies demonstrates that it is based on folklore. For example, the Sims, which is as realistic as your typical TV drama, makes a depiction of how life would be if fairies existed:

A grumpy fairy scaring away folks suffering from heavy insomnia. The lads are presumably of Irish origin.

Pro needs to provide a similar image from reality (No need for the Oirish paddies) for his counterargument to be of any value. The definition I stated clearly mention that fairies are creatures of folklore, now I have given you the gold standard for folklore.

In folklore and media, a good chunk of fairies are not nearly as shy or powerful as BTMF. My argument on inductive falsification of fairies stands.

Pro mentions that BTMF is not necessary. From this piece of knowledge, an argument can be made:

  • 1- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an outside source.
  • 2- If a thing is contingent, then its explanation must be in an outside source.
  • 3- BTMF is a thing.
  • 4- Therefore, if BTMF exists then it has an explanation of its existence.
  • 5- BTMF is contingent.
  • 6- Therefore, the explanation of BTMF is in an outside source.

From conceptual analysis and our knowledge of folklore, we learn that the nature of the direct cause is: bound by space, bound by time, physical, natural, biological, procreative, and personal.

Don't believe me? All you have to refute me is to find a folklore story where fairies do not have reproductive organs (kinda an oxymoron). Furthermore, fairies in the Sims are capable of productive functions and female fairies are capable of getting pregnant.
This means that we should expect to see fairies, their villages, waste, bones, pictures, lots of credible testimonies, etc. Our inductive knowledge points that the species of fairies as a whole does not exis, and thus BTMF does not exist. Arguing otherwise is akin to saying that you exist, and yet your grandfather never existed.

Call me when you have a joyous gathering with fairies in order to dispute my argument (if it is not joyous, you should run away instead, and hide in case of grumpy fairies).

3- Falsified

Pro's attempt to modify the definition is a strong indication that his rebuttal is weak in mind, body, substance, and content (scratch the first two). The fact that one house, let alone dozens (judging by the lack rich old people having a heart attacks in front of security monitors), failed to display presence of BTMF falsifies the entity. My opponent concedes the success of the falsification, but attempts to shift the goalpost to save face.

I shift his shift of goalpost back. And just in time for a touchdown (nvm, the QB buttfumbled).

Based on the description, BTMF's magic erases all traces of his ever having been there, which is limited to the closet (hence the adverb "there"). Perhaps this can cause a forensic obstacle (But we all know CSI Miami and detective Conan will still figure it out somehow anyway), however the obstacle is irrelevant to the test proposed by me. The results are clear: BTMF is falsified.

4- Bob & implausibility

Pro does not deny that there is statistically about a 99.9% chance(Nasty! Does this mean that Pro boycotts soaps and sanitizers because the ratio is not 100% too?) that the fairy is not named Bob. I'll leave it at that

5- Appeal to bible

If you don't believe that the bible is a valid testimony, then that is your business. I have provided a perfectly valid argument, and it is up to the voters (Christian voters that is) to decide whether it is sound (No brainier for my fellow Christian members).

Something that spits on our dignity, invades everyone's homes, and casts evil magic in our closets would not affect our lives? Not much pride displayed by Pro. It is bound that a supposedly mischievous species with so much potential power would be mentioned, and yet it is not.

No fairies or anything matching their description was found in the bible.

Don't forget to vote Con *thumbs up*


If you vote tie, the pseudoscientists win. You don't want the pseudoscientists to win, do you?
Vote Con, and you might get an icecream cone*!

*Finding an icecream vendor and deciding to buy an icecream are requirements to gain the bonus reward.
Debate Round No. 3


1. Impossibility

When debate challenges are issued, particularly when in regards to the existence of something, definitions are given in the opening round for a reason. Con seems to have missed that memo.

Imagine Con challenges me to debate the existence of God. In round 1 he defines God as “An omniscient and omnipotent intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe”. I accept the challenge to negate his existence, then proceed by refuting the biblical God of Christianity. If this actually happened then Con, being a Muslim (that’s right Christians), would be the first to see what is wrong with this picture and argue that I am not sticking to the resolution.

It doesn’t matter what Con thinks the definition of BTMF is supposed to be, the definition was given as a condition of the debate and despite having every opportunity to decline or postpone his acceptance till the definition could be straightened out, he accepted. Below is a reminder of the definition that was actually given:

“A creature who hangs around in peoples closets when they are not home. He likes to trash the place and make a mess, but once he senses that someone is close by he disappears and magically erases all traces of his ever having been there”

Cons says I am confusing redefinition with interruption (I believe he meant interpretation). Con can call it whatever he wants, he is not arguing the definition provided.

Con claims that I do not have the right to “clarify” what I meant after an argument was made. That's nonsense. I merely responded to Cons unreasonable interpretation. That's called a rebuttal, and yes, it's allowed in a debate.

Con asks if he was supposed to read my mind. No, he was supposed to read the definition.

Con asks: “who is going to investigate the rhetoric and use of omission when you are talking about a freaking magic fairy”. Actually common sense would dictate that when discussing the existence of such a creature that involves magic and erasing the damage it causes in peoples closets, that the definition needs to be explicitly understood before rational discussion can continue. Con says “Ain't nobody got time for that”. Well I do. If Con didn’t then that is his problem. He shouldn’t have accepted the debate.

Con says that all I have provided are tong twisters. It might feel like tong twisters to Con, that’s what happens when your argument is invalid.

Con has made no argument refuting anything other than his own definition. We are not debating his definition, we are debating the definition given at the start of the debate. That’s how debate works.

2. Fairies do not exist

My response to Con was not to characterize his argument as an argument from ignorance. I don’t know where that came from. My response is that Cons argument is wrong. “If A then B, not B, therefore not A” is a valid structure. However, to use this properly: if A [a creature who… disappears and magically erases all traces of his ever having been there] then B [???]. Con needed to come up with a valid B scenario that would have made some detectable impact on us and has failed to do so, which is why he must resort to adding to the definition.

Con says that I need to provide a similar image from reality for my counterargument to be of any value. I have no responsibility to counter an argument that fails to address the topic of this debate.

Con still argues that if BTMF is real then we should expect to see other fairies, villages, bones, pictures, etc... I remind Con once again that the being in question clearly doesn’t want his existence to be known and has a magical ability to erase all traces of anything we would expect to see, therefore there is nothing we would expect to see. Cons argument is self-refuting.

Cons entire point here is based on the idea that since the word “fairy” is used in the resolution this gives him a free pass to use any interpretation of a fairy he wants and apply that interpretation to BTMF. If the term “fairy” has no one specific interpretation that must be stuck with then Con needs to refute every possible interpretation in order to prove his nonexistence, which he clearly hasn’t done. On the other hand, if there is only one interpretation for us to debate then there is only one way to determine what we are debating… read the definition given in round 1.

3. Falsified

Con claims that the term “there” from the description “BTMF's magic erases all traces of his ever having been there” limits his magic to only what is in the closet. That’s not English. The word “there” is used to describe the location which BTFM occupied. What his magic does is erase all traces of his occupying said location. There is nothing about this that limits his magic to the closet, in fact the definition which explicitly states “all traces” actually clarifies that his magic in this regard is unlimited.

Con hasn’t falsified anything except his own made up definition.

4. Bob & implausibility

My friend’s name is still Bob. Cons graph does nothing to make my statement any less believable. Most of us can instantly figure out why. This is the classic Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. He is painting the bulls-eye around the bullet hole after the shot, then claiming it meaningful that the bullet hit the target.

Bob is just the name that happened to be selected out of thousands, so no matter what name was picked it would have been an extremely unlikely outcome, making the likelihood of an extremely unlikely outcome to actually be 1 in 1. In other words, Con graph shows us the same unlikelihood we would expect no matter what his name was.

5. Appeal to bible

Con ignored every point I made regarding the invalidity of his argument here. His appeals to emotion instead were quite amusing:

“Something that spits on our dignity” – Nothing intelligent contained in this phrase

“invades everyone's homes” – Gee that sounds scary doesn’t it?

“and casts evil magic in our closets…” – Evil? Really?

“It is bound that a supposedly mischievous species with so much potential power would be mentioned” – No, it is not for the reason I mentioned that Con never responded to. The creature in question has no impact on our lives, so there is no reason why it must have been mentioned nor has Con demonstrated that it actually wasn’t. His search doesn’t prove anything, most of the passages in the bible that talk about prophecies are indirect.

And this is all coming from someone who does not even believe in the bible in the first place as he has openly stated that he is a Muslim (sorry Christians, so much for “wink wink”). Like I said, very amusing. Unfortunately nothing of substance to warrant consideration in this debate.


It is quite unfortunate that this debate has pretty much come down to whether it is acceptable to refute the existence of something by attacking made up characteristics not given in the definition of it, but this is what happens when suddenly being tasked with proving the impossible to prove; the nonexistence of an unfalsifiable entity. Clearly that was the point of the debate despite Cons semantics.

I remind the readers again that the burden of proof in this debate was shared. I was tasked with proving BTMFs existence, a burden which I conceded and thus failed to uphold. Meanwhile Con failed not only to uphold his burden of proving its non-existence, but failed to engage in a discussion about the actual creature in question. Neither of us upheld our burden, so this debate is clearly unresolved, aka, tied.

Thanks for reading.


Dragonfang forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Emmarie 1 year ago
You Rock - Double_R!! Also made me laugh! :D
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
this is the most hilarious debate I've ever read, even equalling Poop has DNA.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
laughing my arse off at the title
Posted by Dragonfang 2 years ago
Crap, wrote the argument but forgot to submit it.
Posted by Double_R 2 years ago
Nothing to say I guess...
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Lol at this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro