Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible
Debate Rounds (3)
Five Nights at Freddy's is impossible, besides the fact of that they're haunted.
First round only for acceptance.
No plagiarism, unless to prove a point or to reference.
Take debate seriously; No trolling.
Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point forfeiture.
Since my opponent has not clarified the terms of this debate, I shall provide definitions to the terms.
Five Nights at Freddy's: "a 2014 indie point-and-click survival horror video game developed by Scott Cawthon. The game centers on the fictional pizza restaurant Freddy Fazbear's Pizza, where the player must act as a night security guard, defending themselves from the malfunctioning animatronic animal characters by tracking their movement through the facility using security cameras." -(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
utterly: "in an utter manner; completely; absolutely." -(http://dictionary.reference.com...)
impossible : "incapable of being or of occurring" -(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
To clarify this debate will not be debating whether or not the exact events of Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible, but rather an event like Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible, ie malfunctioning amintronics attacking a night time security guard.
The BoP lies on my opponent, as s/he must prove his/her claim that "Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible"
I wish my opponent luck in proving this absolute claim.
My first argument will be about the conditions of anamatronics. In a similar restaurant called Chuck E Cheese, there are similar characters to the animatronics in Five Nights at Freddy's. The employees that built the animatronics in Chuck E Cheese hadto be bolted to the ground, to make them sturdy and balanced, and they needed they're endoskeletons to be attatched to wires underground. This is needed for the assurance that each animatronics will work correctly. They'll need to havemany electronic devices, and metal poles to keep the animatronic stable. This would mean that there wouldn't be enough space for how the animatronics will move or act during the time. In Five Nights at Freddy's, they are able to walk around the whole pizzaria, but the animatronics in real life are significantly stripped of this ability.
We can also agree that these animatronics can be classified as robots. First of all, I will show the definition of robot.:
1)Electronic devices and metal poles would keep an animatronic stable, thus there wouldn't be enough space for an animontronic to move in real life, as opposed to Five Nights at Freddy's, where they moved freely.
2)The animontronics can be classified as robots, particularly collaborative robots.
3) The setting for the games are 1987 and 1993
4) The amimontronics have very advanced AI for this time period of 1987 and 1993, equivalent to the technology of 2012.
From this argument, one can conclude that:
This debate is based off real life, thus the main premise of this argument can be reworded/summarized as:
The events of Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible in real life, especially between the years of from 1987-1993*. The reasons for this is because:
1) electronic devices and metal poles would stop the amintronics (collaborative robots) from moving freely.
2) The technology of 1987-1993 would stop the amintronics from moving around freely.
(*Note: The setting of 1987-1993 was unclear in my opponent's argument)
My opponent's arguments has proven that the events of Five Nights at Freddy's are unlikely to happen in real life. My opponent's arguments have not proven, however, that the events of Five Nights at Freddy's are utterly impossible.
Thus, my opponent has failed to prove his/her claim that Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible.
"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."
""Erwin Schr"dinger, Die gegenw"rtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)
This famous thought expirement is called Schr"dinger's cat. In Schr"dinger's cat, the cat in the box is in a superposition of both alive and dead when the box is unopened. What happens after the box is opened, however, remains a subject of debate. One interpration, however, called the many-worlds theory, states that the cat remains in a superposition of both dead and alive.
These views, however, are seperate from eachother, so the cat is alive in one world (or plane of existance) and the cat is dead in another world (or plane of existance.) Thus, according to the many-world's theory (and the related string theory and multiverse theory) every event that has ever happened has every possible result, and these results form different worlds/universes/planes of existance.
Thus, according to the many world's theory and related theories (multiverse theory and string theory) it is possible that the events of Five Nights At Freddy's could have happened in another world/universe/plane of existance, where technology was advanced enough in 1987-1993 to move across a place like Freddy's or Chuck-E-Cheeses.
In conclusion, my opponent has failed to prove that the events at Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible (in real life) and I have proven that the events at Five Nights at Freddy's are possible according the many world's theory. '
I await my opponent's counter-arguments.
IAmAWalrus forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by carriead20 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Pro's arguments were easily refuted by Con. Con's arguments are unopposed due to ff. Pro forgot to put a space in the 3rd line of round 2.
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.