The Instigator
nzorient
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
yesikant
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Horoscopes are False

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,395 times Debate No: 6313
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

nzorient

Con

My debating statement is that horoscopes are false and that it does not represent the fate or definition of a personality.

One day I had found myself exploring this mysterious world of astrology where the stars, moon, and sun meet or sit in certain points in space claiming to determine my love life, work etc. Even trying to define what my personality is and who I am best matched for. Who you connect with depends on several factors like a person's look, intelligence, common or uncommon traits, like and dis-likes. If I followed astrology trying to look for the right person, I could be searching for a life-time.

I find them to be so generic that horoscopes are almost as bad as fortune cookies. You can find them in news papers, Internet, magazines. If you lay each one of them side by side and do a comparison, they tell you completely different things, some even contradict themselves.

Horoscopes also cannot determine personality because there is no real time of birth that astrology can pin point on - Is it as soon as the head pops out or when you cut the umbilical cord? If you are born in between a time of transitioning star signs, do you become a duplex combination of personalities? The idea of planets determining someone's personality is impossible. Furthermore, I believe personalities are developed by your surroundings and not by what star sign you belong to.

Astrology also doesn't consider the eternal nature of the human spirit. If our spirits existed before birth, we would have already had our own personalities from our previous spiritual surroundings and carried a trait of it to this earth (according to the bible, it states we are spirit children of God and so our mission on earth is to 'return' back to Him) - That would mean that Horoscopes are 'man-made' because it only applies during the human's short life span on earth and also does not consider after death. There is no truth or principle behind astrology. Furthermore, astrology is always changing and unreliable, so that concludes my debate that horoscopes are false!
yesikant

Pro

My advocacy is that horoscopes are sometimes true and sometimes false.

This topic has a HUGE burden of proof for my opponent - a burden of proof he has not met.

Logical proofs in the form of "All X are Y" are difficult to prove. Are all horoscopes false? Probably not. Do they come true sometimes? Yes. They are vague for a reason, so that they come true - if only some of the time.

Really what my opponent is proving with his arguments are that "some horoscopes are false" not "horoscopes are false in general".

Even of the entirety of my opponents argument is true, that only means horoscopes are false some of the time. However, some of the time is not his burden.

So, since horoscopes are true sometimes and false sometimes, one cannot accurately say that "horoscopes are false".
Debate Round No. 1
nzorient

Con

Mr confused Pro-Horoscope advocates that horoscopes 'sometimes' come true.

Reality is anything in general can come true for anyone! You could say generally to anyone that you might meet the love of your life today, or today is your lucky day at work. However, such general statements are not influenced by the sun or moon. There are some ground truths or principles in life they are normally daily apart of us already which can be quoted generally. Horoscopes seem to be more for a vanity of hopeful luck rather than fact (if it claims to be true).

Therefore if you debate that horoscope are sometimes true and sometimes false would mean that there is no logic behind it and that horoscopes are false because it is 'misleading' and furthermore as I have already mentioned, it is not stable and contradicts with comparative predictions. If a person reads horoscopes daily vs. a person that does not read their horoscopes daily, the 'read' sets themselves up with hopes and expectations (that doesn't always happen, if you are pro) compared to the 'not read' who is unaware, experience something completely contrary. Surely horoscopes can't be applied to all people born on that same day with the same events? Not everyone that is born a Leo, for example, is going to go through the same things as another Leo. This is clearly impossible unless we are under some alien hypnosis. Furthermore, horoscopes don't consider the educated/uneducated, mentally sick, handicapped. So how can horoscopes be true? It's a man made business.

Horoscopes cannot resemble life, nor is our motions in life influenced by the sun or moon (unless it was a nice sunny day to hit the beach but that would only effect our mood for the day). We find our own happiness/luck by working hard, surrounding yourself in the right environment and exposing yourself to life's experiences.

Horoscopes are false because it is misleading and sugar-coats daily common sense by stating the obvious that is applicable to anyone and everyone.
yesikant

Pro

I agree with almost everything my opponent says, however, I don't think that he is proving that all horoscopes are false. He is only proving that horoscopes are false much of the time, but not all of the time.

He says:
"if you debate that horoscope are sometimes true and sometimes false would mean that there is no logic behind it and that horoscopes are false..."

That doesn't make a shred of sense. If horoscopes are false sometimes, then they are false all the time? That doesn't make any sense. "Sometimes" is not logically the same as "all the time". Even if they are misleading, that doesn't mean they are always wrong.

Thus, since horoscopes are correct some of the time, we cannot accurately say "horoscopes are false", meaning you vote Con in rejection of the topic.
Debate Round No. 2
nzorient

Con

According to which law do horoscopes abide by? Man, in our limited knowledge have setup horoscopes to give a perception that you can predict the future or judge someone according to their birth date. However it has been made up based on no reliable source. Nor is horoscopes apart of nature as it has not been natural since the beginning of men - Whether your idea of beginning of men is the apes revolution or from Adam & Eve, horoscopes were made up only in the more recent part. And no, horoscopes could not have revolved because the sun or moon did not significantly change since man on been on the planet.

I would also like to point out that there is no reciprocal communication channel between humans and planets. It is unknown that humans can talk to the sun, moon or stars and expect it to talk back. In saying that, astrologers can't talk to the planet Mars so instead they make up an idea and assume it is true - when in fact it is only made up, so that is actually false because they haven't confirmed their assumption. Nor can they see where the planets align (until more recent times). Because planet discovery is more visible due to modern technology, this would prove that horoscopes are man made and not true. Furthermore, society has survived century after century without the knowledge of horoscopes, therefore the need for horoscopes is false.

What would happen if a star exploded (as they do in space), what would be the fate of that man relying on that star? So, does that mean astrologers would have readjust their man made ideas and try to reason out their initial predictions? This would be unreliable and false. This means that ideas would have to keep changing. How would astrologers keep up with what's going on up in space? How are astrologers able to predict 12 months in advance when the stars and planets are always changing? It is because they are quoting ideas that are general and applicable to anyone they write for. This would say horoscopes are false.

Because it is made up by man, then I can accurately say that all horoscopes are false because there is no founding law behind it and no deep history. Furthermore, the calendar is man made so if astrologers base our fate on a man made calendar means that all horoscopes are false.

Therefore if the ideology of horoscopes are man made, so anything that is 'sometimes true' - means that all horoscopes are entirely false because it is man made ideas without reliable confirmation.
yesikant

Pro

Though I thank my opponent for the debate, I do not think he has understood my point.

In his last argument he said "According to which law do horoscopes abide by?", then moves on to say that horoscopes have no basis in science.

I conceded all these arguments. All his arguments are true, but they do not prove that horoscopes are false. I totally agree that horoscopes are totally random and that they do not abide by laws. They are therefore subject to chance. This means they will come true at least sometimes, by chance.

As stated, if horoscopes come true at least sometimes by chance, then we cannot accurately state that all horoscopes are false.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Guitarstrike 5 years ago
Guitarstrike
The Instigator is saying that horoscopes are false (indicated by the title of the debate). The contender is saying that horoscopes are sometimes false and sometimes true ("My advocacy is that horoscopes are sometimes true and sometimes false"). However, what the instigator is saying is that horoscopes have no basis, and are therefore sometimes true and sometimes false ("Therefore if you debate that horoscope are sometimes true and sometimes false would mean that there is no logic behind it and that horoscopes are false because it is 'misleading' and furthermore as I have already mentioned, it is not stable and contradicts with comparative predictions", see he is agreeing that horoscopes are sometimes true and sometimes false, and that there is no logic or basis behind it). The contender states that since they have no basis, they are sometimes true and sometimes false, and are not always false ("I agree with almost everything my opponent says, however, I don't think that he is proving that all horoscopes are false. He is only proving that horoscopes are false much of the time, but not all of the time"). So you two are basically arguing on the same side of an argument. Both of you are saying that horoscopes are sometimes false and sometimes true. Its just that one person is FOCUSING on how they have no basis, and the other is focusing on how they are NOT ALWAYS false...it just depends on how you look at it.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
You need to change your position to PRO. You are arguing the wrong side right now.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
nzorientyesikantTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by yesikant 8 years ago
yesikant
nzorientyesikantTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
nzorientyesikantTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13