Does Australia Exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
I've been getting multiple messages about this from my opponent, so I decided to challenge him.
Australia definition: "Continent of the eastern hemisphere SE of Asia & S of the equator area2,948,366 square miles (7,665,751 square kilometers)"
Exist definition: "To have actual being : to be real"
Full Resolution: "The continent known as Australia exists"
Please do not go into semantics with the definitions, like claiming it exists in ones mind. We are talking about whether the continent is real or not in objective reality.
Rules (Made by bsh1 and edited slightly):
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No unproven assumptions will be allowed in this debate
6. No K's of the topic
7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions
8. The BOP is on Pro
9. Both debaters must follow this format:
R2: Arguments (No rebuttals)
R3: Rebuttals and arguments
R4: Conclusions (No new arguments or rebuttals in this round)
10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire forfeit of the debate
Thank you and good luck.
Australia's name is a pseudonym for its location, hence it being isolated, the first prime minister Sir Edmund Barton declared it "Australia" in 1901 with the federal constitution and referendum, it was on fact orginally entitled "New South Wales by the founding fathers (I.e. six British colonies - Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales, Western British Colony, Southern British Colony, Tasmania, Northern Territory) http://www.peo.gov.au...
Additionally, Australia has a written construction, and therefore is defined as feredation and thus a country. Australia also is on the globe and map and as such is also defined as a country.
Thank you for accepting.
Currently no evidence exists to prove that Australia is real. My rounds will be mostly rebuttals, so I eagerly await my opponent's main arguments. My argument will essentially go like this:
P1: If there is no good evidence for a claim, it probably doesn't exist
P2: There is no good evidence for Australia
Conclusion: Therefore, Australia probably doesn't exist.
P1: This is just using logic. If there is no evidence for unicorns, we would believe they probably do not exist. Same goes for fairies, Bigfoot, etc... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. Australia is definitely an extraordinary claim, and thus must have evidence for it in order for people who reasonably believe it.
P2: This will be determined by what my opponent brings to the table in terms of arguments. Essentially, if I can't rebut the evidence or show why it's faulty then I'll concede this point.
The conclusion follows logically from the premises.
Thanks for reading, good luck!
Report this Argument
You have not debunked my insinuations of Australian history and that it is clearly on the map. Therefore, you cannot continue this debate without proving that you have the inability to read maps nor that you know anything of history. How about googling Australia? Or looking it up on the map? My proof lies there.
Arcanas forfeited this round.
Map of Australia link:
Map of Australia on Globe link:
Australian Flag link:
Now that I have presented concrete evidence, hopefully this juvenile and nefarious "meme" can be vanquished and this website left to intellectual debates.
Arcanas forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Le-vox-von-zhizn 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: They both broke rules but Con broke it twice thus the Conduct point. Pro also had sources which weren't unreliable except Wikipedia.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.