The Instigator
wildcat101
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RiskTaker
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Conspiracy Theories: You decide!

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 51284
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

wildcat101

Pro

I am starting this debate to see others oppinions on various conspiracy theories. This will be the first in a series of these debates. the first round is acceptance. Con will choose first topic. We shall debate on that topic for two rouinds, then I (Pro), will choose the next topic to finish out the last two rounds.No sources required, this is mostly a "what do you think" debate, and there is no designated right or wrong answer.
RiskTaker

Con

Topic: You are in the real reality; not in a simulated one.

Your position: Pro.
My Position: Con.

Please present your case supporting that resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
wildcat101

Pro

Before I begin, I would like to once again say that this is pretty much a mostly oppinionated debate (For those of you who will be voting on this debate). As to whether or not we are in a real or simulated realm of existence is easy for me to debate. If we were not ina real realm of existence, how would this simulated realm function? Who would be running it, aliens? It seems really farfetched to say that reality is not really reality. At least, it seems you are saying that it is not. I will note that some things are just harder to grasp than others, such as how we somehow have something inside our brain, which we still cannot locate, that permits us as human beings to be able to have thoughts. But, the thought that we are not in a truly real realm of existence is not hard to grasp in my oppinion; it is impossible. I look forward to your refuting of my oppinions. I would like to end this argument by mentioning one last time that sources are not required to support your oppinion on topics like these, as it would be hard to get a source that would be completely accurate in a world of confusion and unanswered questions.
RiskTaker

Con

My opponent proposes that a simulated reality is not fully understood in terms of who runs it or how they do so. I can agree that every detail of how our simulated reality cannot be understood, or expressed, in a debating website which is yet another simulated reality within this simulated reality. The task of Con is not to explain the ins and outs of how the simulated reality works, only prove that there is reasonable doubt that the reality which we presume to be real is not that actual one.

Everything that is physically real has an origin of some kind, or at least a relative point at which we can say it 'came into existence'. Even my opponent and myself had a point at which we came into existence, and I do not mean a chronological point of origin, since time itself is an artificial construct in this simulation of reality according to my side of this debate; instead I am referring to a physical occurrence that necessitates that the physically real thing has to exist. Your parents having sex and the specific sperm hitting the specific egg at that time in those conditions necessitated your birth, in the same way that the existence of all the cells in your body in the form that they are necessitates you to act and appear that way in which you do. On the other hand, reality has no such origin to speak of. The only theories proposed, such as a big bang or a divine intervention of some kind, all leave further holes in the logic behind reality since they never explain the origin of the energy or matter that made the big bang or the origin of the supernatural entity that was responsible for the divine intervention. It's all well and good to say that God created you or that a big bang caused the expansion of the universe but one must first explain how the ingredients for the big bang or the set of events that necessitated a divine entity itself to exist.

In conclusion, until the set of events that are required for this to real are either stated or justified as being unknown, it is safe to assume that we are in a simulated reality whereas a more sensible one without holes in the logic of its origin is the true one that we are unable to comprehend within the realm of this one.
Debate Round No. 2
wildcat101

Pro

Well, it is now my turn to propose the topic, and I would really like to disuss whether or not AIDs was really caused by someone getting with a "monkey". I believe It could possibly have been made by the governments in one or more nations in order to find a source of population control. For example, China and India are both nations with over one billion people, and there are limits set in place in those nations as to how many kids someone can have.
RiskTaker

Con

RiskTaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wildcat101

Pro

Since the previous round was forfeited and never acknoledged, I will move to end this debate and let the voters vote based on what has already been said. Thank you for participating with me cookiemonster
RiskTaker

Con

RiskTaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
wildcat101

Pro

Again. my opponent has forfeited this round, and this being the last round, this means he cannot give another argument in this debate. I urge you vote for my side as I at least tried to continue our debate. I apologize that the debate was not more interesting.
RiskTaker

Con

RiskTaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wildcat101 2 years ago
wildcat101
To the person who had the first comment, I think it will be hard for me to debate that topic, but I will accept if you will. Just choose to accept the debate and let's get this under way.
Posted by pingwa 2 years ago
pingwa
I would like to take that the moon landing was not faked. and I would like to be con
No votes have been placed for this debate.