The Instigator
slave123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Do Monsters exist

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...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,397 times Debate No: 72010
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

slave123

Pro

Monsters do exist,


All matter is made up of energy


We can only see a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum



Electromagnetic energy only makes up a small portion of the matter and energy content of our universe,


Most of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy,




It is highly possible that there could be other worlds out there made up of different forms of matter,


these other planes of existence share the same space as ours but are made of different forms of matter and energy,


the plane closest to our physical plane is the etheric plane,


it is here where the Jinn lurk,


the Quran says Jinn are made of smokeless fire, this could be a description of how matter is like in the etheric plane,


angels are made of light so probably occupy higher planes of existence ameen,


Now there is a lot of proof these Jinn can desguise themselves as monsters,


they can materialize by changing their atomic structure and enter our reality,


they can come in the forms of animals, humans, and monsters ameen,


The Mothman is the best example of a real Monster case,




It was seen by over 100 people,


there is no way 100 people got together and conspired the whole thing,


there is no way it could have been a sand hill crane either, since it has no neck and is broader then a sandhill crane,


it can't be an owl either, since Marcella Bennet saw it just a few feet in front of her and was looking up at it and said it was bigger then a man,


owls are very small compared to the Mothman,


so it can't be an owl,

Mothman is real ameen

and of coarse Jinn can desguise themselves as Bigfoot, the Lochness monster, Chupacabra and many others,


here is some more proof of other monsters ameen,




s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" width="236" height="332" />























TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

I would like to take a moment to thank Slave for his interesting debate topic, may it be an inspiring and rational debate. Let's begin:



Argument Uno


monster
-an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.


Pro has lost this debate by definition. Even if we assumed that monster means something non-human or a non-known animal, Pro still hasnt shown sufficient evidence to back his resolution.




Argument Dos

Although Pro has succeded in divulging speculation he has not shown suffiecient evidence to back his claims. I accept with the understanding that burden of proof is on Pro. Nice profile pic by the way Haha, I'm liking the beard.







Citations

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.google.com...



-TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Debate Round No. 1
slave123

Pro

"I would like to take a moment to thank Slave for his interesting debate topic, may it be an inspiring and rational debate."

Your welcome

"Argument Uno

monster-an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

Pro has lost this debate by definition. Even if we assumed that monster means something non-human or a non-known animal, Pro still hasnt shown sufficient evidence to back his resolution."

that is not the only definition,

according to Con's own source it could also mean,

"something that is extremely or unusually large"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So I have not lost this debate based on what the dictionary says,

Monster has many meanings

Full Definition of MONSTER

1

a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure

b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character

2

: a threatening force

3

a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape

b : one unusually large for its kind

4

: something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty

5

: one that is highly successful

This is from Con's own source Merriam Webster's dictionary

and I have provided plenty of evidence monsters exist,

I have shown that there were over 100 mothman sightings

I ask Con when in history did 100 honest people, get together and conspire an event that never took place, and then believe it, and not seek publicity, etc?

And I ask Con was Linda Scarberry a liar? Mad? or legit?

If you read Mothman facts behind the legend, and read her interview, or even watch her interview on youtube, it is clear she was telling the truth amen,

and what about Marcella Bennet? She saw the Mothman close up, and it was definitely no barn owl or crane,

there is definitely something to the Mothman phenomenon,

and the Mothman is an abnormal creature, so thus a monster in the true sense,

and my theory is that Mothman and other monsters are interdimensional,

Con hasn't proven any flaws in my theory amen,

and what about all the pictures I posted on the first round,

I doubt they are all photoshopped,

I invite Con to do research on those photographs and debunk all of them,

the baby alien one is real,

the jersey devil one is real,

the bigfoot one is still being debated,

but Con did not even address my photographic evidence?

"Argument Dos

Although Pro has succeded in divulging speculation he has not shown suffiecient evidence to back his claims. I accept with the understanding that burden of proof is on Pro. Nice profile pic by the way Haha, I'm liking the beard. "

I provided plenty of evidence, the baby alien picture is real,

and it is definitely a monster by definition,

these things are real,

the question is what are they,

my theory is that they are interdimensional or ultraterrestrial,

Con has yet to debunk my theory amen,

and thanks for the compliment on my beard, thanks,

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

Please watch the above video ^, it is part of the debate,

the first video proves the baby alien is not from earth,

the second video is an interview with Marcella Bennet,

JazakAllah khair ameen
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Thank you for your reply Slave123, I will now begin my turn. First I would like to ask what Ameen means haha. Secondly I would just like to clarify that I believe BOP should be on Slave, this is because if it were on me then I would have to prove that something does not exist, which is frankly impossible and thus abusive. That is all, I move to definitions:


Definitions

Slave is now being abusive. He created a debate and didn’t specify to what we would be referring and is now moving goal posts in order to make the debate impossible to win. If all Slave must prove is that “a threatening force” exists, or that “a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness” exists, then I have automatically lost this round. This is abusive, slave is obligated to define all terms before the round. I chose the common definition. If someone said “there is a monster under your bed”, they are not referring to an ugly person, nor are they referring to and ‘unnatural force’, they are most likely commenting on a mythical creature.

Being that Slave123 has made an abusive round with changing goal posts, it is only reasonable to accept the common definition. He set expectations before the round that he was going to prove that an imaginary creature exists on another dimension which means he must lose the round unless our consciousness where we dream up monsters is real and on another dimension. Again, his changing of the common definition to about 6 definitions is abusive and secondly Slave has violated his duty in creating a fair definitions based debate. I maintain my definition is the correct and common one under the given circumstances. However let’s be clear, if con shows that the monsters which we imagined became real, or for some reason are real, then he can still win.

Photos

Slave123 has provided a plethora of fake photos which claim to show monsters, however I would like to state you have provided no evidence showing these photos are real. In order to confirm their validity, you would need quoted evidence or perhaps video of a group of real scientists confirming that it is a real picture. Or perhaps a government statement that they are real pictures of ‘monsters’. Pictures that seem real are not proof in and of themselves. You would need to show quoted or physical evidence supporting this.

Sightings

Slave123 has stated that because 100 people have seen mothman that he is real, that this shows how people couldn’t collaborate, however there are many differences in their stories most likely. Secondly just because people claim to see something similar doesn’t mean it is so. For instance, many more than a hundred people have claimed to see Christian angles or the Christian god yet their claim to this proves nothing. Not only this but on the other hand people of the Muslim faith have claimed to see muslim angles and thus, assuming the doctrine of each religion is correct, both cannot simultaneously be real. Because both claim to be the single god of the universe. It doesn’t even have to just be muslims and Christians though there are hundreds of thousands of religions our there which would have the same cancelling effect on one another.

Interdimensional theory

Slave123 has made his own theory however it is based off of false logic, he uses the appeal to ignorance fallacy in stating that just because we can’t see something and thus cannot prove it wrong, that it exists. His theory isn’t even case specific to monsters, it could just be hiding other people. Slave states I haven’t debunked his theory, well the responsibility is not mine. I have simply pointed out that you have insufficient evidence to back your theory and given that it is your job to prove it right, you have no proven anything. You need way more evidence and not just speculation. There is a reason science, unlike philosopy, happens in the lab and not the mind.

Videos

A.) Testimony doesn’t prove moth man

B.) If you look in the comments section, it has been confirmed to just be a monkey “they did the real dna test and it was some small local monkey”

Lol, still not sure if this is a troll debate or not.

Debate Round No. 2
slave123

Pro

"Thank you for your reply Slave123, I will now begin my turn. First I would like to ask what Ameen means haha. Secondly I would just like to clarify that I believe BOP should be on Slave, this is because if it were on me then I would have to prove that something does not exist, which is frankly impossible and thus abusive. That is all, I move to definitions:"

I have met the burden of proof, I have shown your pictures, strong eyewitness testimony, etc, what else do you need?

What kind of proof are you looking for Con?

Definitions:

1
a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2
: a threatening force
3
a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape
b : one unusually large for its kind
4
: something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty
5
: one that is highly successful

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So by definition Monsters exist, because a monster could a strange animal or terrifying shape, or anything ugly or scary,

it does not have to be imaginary,

where in my arguments did I say monsters are imaginary,

you just quoted one definition of monster, there are many definitions,

but the monsters I am talking about are Mothman, Jersey Devil, aliens etc,

there is no proof they are imaginary,

they might as well be real,
y theory is they are interdimensional,

and I have proven this with the picture evidence,

Con missed the Jersey Devil picture,

which is proven to be real,

and it clearly shows a deer like creature with wings, and is still unexplained,

these thing do exist,

The Monsters I am talking about are Cryptids and Paranormal creatures,

they are not imaginary,

I do not agree with Con's definition, that monsters are imaginary creatures,

I already proved the dictionary gives more definitions to monsters,

and the dictionary can't prove what is imaginary or real, the dictionary is not God, ameen

Photos

"Slave123 has provided a plethora of fake photos which claim to show monsters, however I would like to state you have provided no evidence showing these photos are real. In order to confirm their validity, you would need quoted evidence or perhaps video of a group of real scientists confirming that it is a real picture. Or perhaps a government statement that they are real pictures of "monsters". Pictures that seem real are not proof in and of themselves. You would need to show quoted or physical evidence supporting this."

The Photos are real,

The Jersey Devil picture is real,

and the baby alien picture is real,

and scientists did confirm this,

the Jersey Devil picture was taken on the show Paranormal state, and scientists confirmed it is unexplained,

and the Baby Alien picture was taken on Monster Quest and the team of scientists on Monster Quest proved the DNA of the creature is of unknown origin,

Now any one can comment on a youtube video and say it is fake,

what is the proof of a random persons claim,

on TV scientists announced the baby alien is real, so it must be,

Sightings

" just because people claim to see something similar doesn"t mean it is so."

but if 100 honest and reliable witnesses claim to see something it must be so,

in court of law they use eyewitness testimony,

so we can't discount strong eyewitness testimony, ameen

"For instance, many more than a hundred people have claimed to see Christian angles or the Christian god yet their claim to this proves nothing."

how do you know they didn't see it,

the interdimensional beings could easily masquerade as christian angels and christian god,

"Not only this but on the other hand people of the Muslim faith have claimed to see muslim angles and thus, assuming the doctrine of each religion is correct, both cannot simultaneously be real."

The ultraterrestrials/interdimensionals can masquerade as Muslim angels and God too ameen,

they can disquise themselves as any paranormal being,

we just have to look at the reliability of the witnesses ameen,

yes hundreds of people seen the christian god,

but not at the same location,

100 people at the same place and time frame saw the Mothman,

and their testimony is strong,

so there must be something to it,

and just because these manifestations contradict each other, doesn't mean, angels, demons, monsters, aliens, etc aren't real,

they are just ultraterrestrials trying to confuse us by appearing in different guises ameen

Interdimensional theory

Well recently scientists are admitting there are other dimensions,

according to String Theory (which is the closest theory of everything we have) there are 11 dimensions,

if there are 11 dimensions, there must be something that occupies these hidden dimensions,

and 11 dimensional entity could exist all around us and manifest itself in any form it wants,

paranormal being could be from a higher dimension,

according M-theory and Multiverse theory, there are an infinite amount of other universes,

and even if monsters don't exist in our universe, they could exist in other universes,

so there Con, Monsters are real, because they do exist somewhere in space and time,

we may not be able to see them,

but probability shows they must exist,

whatever they are and whatever they look like,

what ever you imagine might as well exist in a parallel universe,

and science is doing experiments to find the 11th dimension and other universes ameen,

also there could be worm holes that connect our universe with other universes,

and monsters from other universes might come into our universe through these wormholes,

this could be what the lochness monster, bigfoot, mothman, etc might be,

and there is evidence for this too,

watch ufo hunters the episode on vortexes,

they caught a photograph of a ufo traveling through a wormhole,

so this phenomenon of interdimensional travel is proven ameen,

end of debate Con I win ameen,

Videos

"A.) Testimony doesn"t prove moth man"

Yes it does, the witness was very reliable and shaken by her experience, she is not lying and saw something,

there were other people with her so she was not hallucinating either ameen,

and it was too big to be a regular bird, so yes this is proof and you can't ignore these facts so easily ameen,

"B.) If you look in the comments section, it has been confirmed to just be a monkey "they did the real dna test and it was some small local monkey""

Any one can write a comment on youtube, that doesn't prove anything,

On TV scientists themselves announced that the DNA tests proved this creature wasn't normal,

so show me a real scientists debunking this,

I saw scientists confirming it,

but I have yet to see a scientist doing an experiment and proving it was a monkey,

and the thing doesn't even look like a monkey, it is part reptilian,

If you watch monster quest you can see the scientists actually doing the experiment and themselves announcing what it is,

so this is proof enough,

so yes monsters are real and I have met the burden of proof,

if Con still is not convinced,

he is arrogant and blind to the facts,

but never the less monsters are real,

ameen
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Through this debate slave his literally proven that the only type of evidence he can understand is hearsay and conjecture. In this debate I have made serveral fundemental case ending points which have been all-but negated. One of the first and most obvoius points was the definitions, my next point was obviously the lack of proof. Slave uses an extremely unnecessary format which has made it hard for me to keep track of his arguments, you honesetly can't even tell which arguments are important and which are not because its all one segmented block of text. Also Slave never did tell me what Ameen meant lol. The debate was poorly carried out but let me just give my points the best I can now.


Argument on definitions

standard procedure
1.) It is standard procedure to define all terms in an instigator's debate
2.) It is commonly known that if a debater does not define normal terms, such as 'do', 'exist' or like I have said 'monster', then the normal terms are going to be used
3.) Slave123, the instigator of this debate, has not defined the normal term 'moster' and thus the regular definition should be used
4.) The normal definition implys that monsters are imaginary and thus cannot exist
5.) the resolution cannot be affirmed

abuse
1.) Slave123 has not fulfiled his burden to provide standard definitions
2.) In lew of his ignorance, he has provided 6 other definition on which the debate was to operate
3.) His definitions make the debate impossible to win and thus he has attempted to make a 'debate trap'
4.) this is abusive as it destroys the educational value of the game and moves goal posts
5.) thus he should at the very least lose conduct points


Argument on proof

1.) The burden of proof is on Slave123
2.) The definition of the resolution, that monsters exist, implys that all monsters exists.
3.) slave has not shown that all monsters exist even IF all the ones he supposes are proved, really are.
4.) Thus it is impossible for him to win this debate

1.)The burden of proof is on Slave123
2.) In order to prove the existance of monsters he would need credible evidene
3.) Pictures are often faked and dont alone prove anything, videos of testimony are influced by things such as hullutionations or hysteria and better yet these testimony just prove they saw Something but not necessarily moth man or the like. Videos are the same, they dont neccesarily prove anything either and as I stated for instance the alien creature was just a monkey. Pro didnt prove otherwise
4.) Thus Slave has used invalid evidence and proves nothing
5.) being that his evidence is invalid it would be illogical for him to be victorious in this debate.

Slave, I'll have to apologize if you think I am an 'arrogant, blind' idiot, but if we look at the facts your case makes no sense. I thank anyone who read this, these are my points, have a good day/night
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by slave123 1 year ago
slave123
I recommend all you atheists start reading more about monsters, and read John Keel's books and Zachariah Sitchin's books, and David Icke's books, and Loren Coleman's books, and Richard Freeman's books,

and stop believing everything Jaclyn Glenn says, because she is a liar,

there are monsters out there,

and atheism is wrong about it's claims there are no montsers ameen
Posted by slave123 1 year ago
slave123
ok but monsters do exist and atheism is wrong, I mean monsters are literally proven to exist, there is so much evidence, and there is so much dark matter in the universe, so there are things we can't see, and there are other dimensions and parallel universes out there as scientists say,

so with so many unexplored lands, planets, parallel universes, and extra-dimensions there have to be monsters out there, so the atheists have no basis for their claims that there are no monsters anywhere in existence,

for surely there are monsters ameen
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Its fine I never looked at it that way . BTW Bluesteel said my RFD was sufficient enough, and it wasn't taken down.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
@tajshar2k
Hey man, just wanted to let you know that I'm not trying to insult you by reporting your vote. You're vote was abusive though. If the opponent concedes then they have literally forfeited their rights to win the debate
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
TheJuniorVarsityNovice had nothing to do with with my vote just to clarify.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
I reported their votes because the other guy literally conceded that round. I had nothing to do with it but you need to calm the f@ck down. Don't call me an 'atheist pig', I could make A Lot of jokes about your religion, but that doesn't make them true and all you do is spread hatred towards your own religion. I'm sure your a good person but your broad generalizations about atheism and people who believe Anything other than what You believe is unjustifiable, immoral and ignorant...
Posted by slave123 1 year ago
slave123
See my other debate with the same name your atheist friends ganged up on me
Posted by slave123 1 year ago
slave123
You atheists are so boring all you do is lie and cheat you are homosexual pigs that is your only life and sense of fun
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
I don't know what you're talking about but I had nothing to do with it
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
slave123TheJuniorVarsityNoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The possibility of monsters existing is not proof that they do actually exist. Also, witness accounts can in fact be made up, and can't be taken for truth unless other evidence also agrees.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
slave123TheJuniorVarsityNoviceTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides gave a pretty convincing argument. The deciding point was on better conduct. Pro insulted Con by saying he is blind and arrogant.