The Instigator
RevL8ion
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Jedi4
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is Star Wars Real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
RevL8ion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 883 times Debate No: 61197
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

RevL8ion

Con

In this argument, I will be settling the matter that Star Wars is entirely fictional (although perhaps based on real-life events), and the world is totally unrelated to the Star Wars Universe. My opponent's objective is to show evidence that Star Wars is indeed existent in our world. I will keenly await his acceptance or rejection.
Jedi4

Pro

Everyone thought star wars was a fake. But Glucus was a prophet and created star wars as God instructed him too. There is some evidence from the films. For one, the physics of star wars is highly accurate.

Tatooine's twin suns

Everybody thought twin star systems were bullsh1t. Everyone laughed at ole lucus for his stupid idea. Here is a photo from the movie



With recent evidence, we know this is likely and common.


http://www.space.com......

Instestingly enough, it is likely common. This means some time, life should evolve around a twin star system. No way for lucus to have known this. If fact evidence has shown Kepler 16B is a twin star system

http://en.wikipedia.org......

Likeliness of Aleien life

Alien life is very likely. There are so many planets out there. It is high unlikely that there aren't aliens out there. It has happened on earth and with sooo much time that has been elasped, it is very very probable that some other alien life has evolved, and that some of them have engaged in space travel (after all we did).

Lightsabers

The technology in star wars can happen and has hapened. For example its relly possible to create a light saber, they really have

http://newsfeed.time.com......

Levitation tech

Levitation tech is also possible via the use of room tempurture super conducters
http://en.wikipedia.org......

Communcation

Holographic communcation is also possible and has happened. As star wars predicted. And communcation can easily become FTL via quantum entanglement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk......


How can star wars have known these are possible in the real world. No body thought these were possible and everybody laughed. Whoooo's laughing noooow?


Notice some say star wars can be fake but tech can still exist. This is wronggg.

the modal operator HJS[] <> W. Where W is some possible world where star wars is false. When we see W we notice a lack of tech. If W <> then Tech [] F. This is stating when there is a world where star wars is made up, then the tech is not possible. We see the tech is possible and exists, then W does not hold, meaning because there is SW tech then it follows []J or neccecarily jedism is true.


The Force

We know there is a force, electircity can move objects already. we also know the body has an electic charge.
http://health.howstuffworks.com......

Thats what the force is a bio electric force. We already know it exists.

We have amny many reports of telekinesis and we see many religions center around things that can be explaned by the force.

http://en.wikipedia.org......

Example, Jesus used the force healing to heal the sick.

We cannot discredit these claims because at least one must be correct. A force is a likely explanation.

Also we know everything that is contingent by definition has some type of reason for existece, we know existence is contingent what could be that neccecary thing which exists? The force is the only explanation.

When we get down to it we see the force explains many things and star wars was right.
Debate Round No. 1
RevL8ion

Con

Thank you for your argument, Pro. I would first like to note that Jedi4 copied his argument from another debate, word for word. See for yourself: http://www.debate.org.... This should automatically give me the conduct point in votes. Well, let's begin, shall we?

I. Introduction
In this argument, I will prove Star Wars has never existed physically in this world. I will use sources from Star Wars (believe it or not, I know a lot about Star Wars after hours on Wookieepedia) and scientific reasoning and logic in order to negate my opponent's argument. Furthermore, I will exploit the weaknesses, holes, and invalid portions of his argument.


II. Rebuttals
This is probably going to be the longest section on here (no offense to Pro).

1. I will rebutt the entire argument in the beginning. Pro never proves that Star Wars is real; he only shows us things that are related to Star Wars. He is basically just claiming that Star Wars were based on these real-life events. This is another fatal flaw on Pro's part. Now, for more specification.
2. "Instestingly enough, it is likely common. This means some time, life should evolve around a twin star system. No way for lucus to have known this. If fact evidence has shown Kepler 16B is a twin star system" The header for this portion is Tatooine's Twin Suns, yet Pro has never proved that Tatooine existed. Therefore, this statement is invalid, as Pro neglected to prove the Tatooine star system is ral.
3. "Alien life is very likely. There are so many planets out there. It is high unlikely that there aren't aliens out there. It has happened on earth and with sooo much time that has been elasped, it is very very probable that some other alien life has evolved, and that some of them have engaged in space travel (after all we did)." This contention is heavily opinionated, with no facts, no statistics, and no sources. While alien life in the universe is likely, Pro once again neglects to show that these are actual Star Wars species and characters.
4. "Levitation tech is also possible via the use of room tempurture super conducters" This statement's source is invalid, as all he did was include the home page of Wikipedia. In addition, characters in Star Wars use the Force in order to levitate objects. The Force is never shown to be a technological power in any Star Wars movies, episodes, or stories.
5. "Holographic communcation is also possible and has happened. As star wars predicted. And communcation can easily become FTL via quantum entanglement." By now, I was throughly tired and extremely frustrated by my opponent. His source was once again the home page of another website, and does not give enough information.
6. "We know there is a force, electircity can move objects already. we also know the body has an electic charge. http://health.howstuffworks.com......... Thats what the force is a bio electric force." To begin with, he uses home pages as citations yet again. The Force is described by Wookieepedia as "a metaphysical, spiritual, binding, omnipotent and ubiquitous power that held enormous importance for both the Jedi and Sith monastic orders."[1] It says nothing about the Force being a bio-electrical force. Therefore, the Force does not exist in our universe.
7. "How can star wars have known these are possible in the real world. No body thought these were possible and everybody laughed. Whoooo's laughing noooow?" This was the last straw to my patience. Obviously, Pro is not taking this debate seriously. He posts false citations, dozens of typos, and probably even spews out false information that I could prove wrong if I bothered to. To put it short, Pro's argument is totally immature and invalid.

III. A Short Argument
Star Wars contains many fictional aspects that I've asserted in the above section. Pro used a horribly failed attempt at logical reasoning to prove that Star Wars is real (and it seems as if it was copy/pasted), and I will revive that method using syllogism. Let P be "If Star Wars is real, then the universal principles of Star Wars, such as the Force, is also real," and Q should be "If said universal principles of Star Wars are real, then Star Wars fans and creators should be aware of their existence." Thus, if Star Wars is real, then everyone who knows of Star Wars should know and be able to prove that it exists. However, my opponent has failed to do so accurately, therefore, Star Wars is not real.

IV. Conclusion
My opponent has treated this debate like a joke so far, which I do not appreciate. He must try much harder in order to have a chance at winning this debate. I have proved that Star Wars is not real, with strong evidence, reasoning, and common sense to back me up, whereas the opponent has...nothing, basically. The debate has quickly turned to my favor. I will await Pro's second attempt to reinforce his argument.
Jedi4

Pro

Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RevL8ion

Con

I had a feeling that my opponent would forfeit. In a response to a comment in this debate, of course lasers work, and perhaps lightsabers would be invented someday. However, today's lasers are mainly used for medical purposes and aren't colored blue, red, blue, or purple, nor are they used as sword-like weapons. This debate obviously concludes with Con as the victor, but I still sincerely hope that my opponent will not forfeit in this or the final round. Nevertheless, consider on voting Con in this debate.
Jedi4

Pro

Rev is obviously dodging the questions. He handwaves and bullsh1ts all the way thoru this debate. you fail to understand basic modal logic. Its amazing really. nothing but strawmen herer.



He say i plagerized from myself. LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL wtf? How can this be worth a conduct point? Other guy go "you only prove things in ar wars" You d1ck nuts, did you not see the modal axiom?

He say i never prove tatoonie just twin suns. This is sooooo funny. This strawman is so ridictulous.

He goes over bullsh1t that the liklyhood of alien life is opionon. I don't know wtf he is talking about it is deduction. it doesnt need sources.

"The Force is never shown to be a technological power in any Star Wars movies, episodes, or stories."

Uhhhhhhhhh ever seen the swoop bike races? You've never seen SW have you?

He also is a b1tch about it not linking to the page. Since he can view my other debate then look at my other debate. it didn't paste well.stop being a b1tch.

"Obviously, Pro is not taking this debate seriously." I always take star wars seriouly. It is my religion.

"Pro used a horribly failed attempt at logical reasoning to prove that Star Wars is real"

No you just lack the knowledge to understand it. He then posts bullsh1t syllogism that cannot be said to prove anything beause Q is not []Q and one can posit <>p without Q as there is some world where P exists without Q. It was divine revaltion anyway for lucus. HE does know.


Conclusion

My opponent is treating this debate like a joke. He fails to understand or try to refute my argues. COmbined with misunderstoods and strawmen. It is bullsh1t.

Debate Round No. 3
RevL8ion

Con

Thanks to Pro for his...interesting (and deeply offensive and somewhat funny for me)...argument. Just be aware that I've reported your profane argument and if you didn't lose a conduct point before, you sure as heck did now. This is the final round, so no new arguments. Let us commence.

I. Introduction
This argument will mainly consist of rebuttals. Pro has claimed that "He handwaves and bullsh1ts all the way thoru this debate. you fail to understand basic modal logic. Its amazing really. nothing but strawmen herer." First of all, what's modal logic? No offense to Pro, but I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're saying about 25% of the time (one comment even suggested Pro was high, which I was dying because of). Second, how am I BSing? Sure, I didn't use much sources as I normally would have, but this debate is so unorthodox, and Pro was being ridiculous, so all it took was some logic and reasoning. Overall, Pro just insulted me in his debate without trying to rebutt my arguments. Pro says "Jedism" is a religion, but personally (sorry for the personal thought, but I am slightly miffed at Pro's ranting), I think Pro is just a person who never went through the phase of "reality". He's being childish, and he refuses to deny that his imagination is fake. While it's natural for someone to deny their lifelong belief (unless he's a troll), that gives no right to Pro to curse and mock me. Onto the refutations.

II. Refutations
1. "Rev is obviously dodging the questions." I certainly did rebutt your questions, and the fact that you can't contradict my rebuttals means that you can't prove my rebuttals wrong.
2. "you fail to understand basic modal logic. Its amazing really. nothing but strawmen herer." I can't help but saying that Pro is the exact opposite of logic in this debate. In addition, Pro is using the term "strawman" incorrectly, or he is just using it while being blind to the meaning. DDO says that strawmanning "takes someone else's arguments, molds them into a more favorable shape for counter argument, and destroys this new structure. The problem is that the original arguments weren't refuted. Instead, a 'straw man' was set up and torn apart."[1] I have immediately rejected Pro's arguments, rebutted his arguments with my original refutations, and have effectively refuted all of his arguments. The term "strawman" for me in this debate is invalid.
3. "He say i plagerized from myself. LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL wtf? How can this be worth a conduct point? Other guy go "you only prove things in ar wars" You d1ck nuts, did you not see the modal axiom? He say i never prove tatoonie just twin suns. This is sooooo funny. This strawman is so ridictulous." May I ask what are you even doing here on DDO? This is pathetic. You never refuted my points, and just laughed at them ("LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL wtf?") without contradicting them. You called us "d1ck nuts", plural, so I can only assume that you called me and the voters "d1ck nuts". Your argument disgusts me.
4. "He goes over bullsh1t that the liklyhood of alien life is opionon. I don't know wtf he is talking about it is deduction. it doesnt need sources." I directly quote from my argument that "while alien life in the universe is likely, Pro once again neglects to show that these are actual Star Wars species and characters." I believe in alien life, but these aliens are not characters from Star Wars. Pro also calls his arguments "deduction", but he acts as if he doesn't have half a clue what he's saying.
5. "He also is a b1tch about it not linking to the page. Since he can view my other debate then look at my other debate. it didn't paste well.stop being a b1tch." Can someone just report him/ban him for this? Please? Thanks.
6. "No you just lack the knowledge to understand it. He then posts bullsh1t syllogism that cannot be said to prove anything beause Q is not []Q and one can posit <>p without Q as there is some world where P exists without Q. It was divine revaltion anyway for lucus. HE does know." Pro now openly denies the Law of Syllogism, and claims that his reasoning, "the modal operator HJS[] <> W.", is correct. While this operator exists, it looks heavily copied/pasted and Pro has used it to muddle the voters and I even further. He also treats George Lucas as a god (note that he can't even spell the name of his "god" right), but George Lucas was born much later than the beginning of the world.

Conclusion
Pro has been exceedingly hostile and showed much of his severe lack of intelligence and civility in this debate. I do not care to say more, and hope this debate will be over quickly. Thanks for your time, voters, and vote Pro!
Jedi4

Pro

I can no longer debate. it hurts to read Cons arguments because his formatiing is so bad. Vote Pro because I cant even read his argues
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jedi4 2 years ago
Jedi4
Jedi4, you're obviously in need of extreme mental therapy at an asylum. And I've reported you.

Ive dont nothing wrong? And if i am in need of mental therapy then why would you report me? Ha shows you dont even believ your own self.
Posted by RevL8ion 2 years ago
RevL8ion
Wait, I meant to say vote Con. Silly me. Don't vote Pro! XD
Posted by RevL8ion 2 years ago
RevL8ion
Jedi4, you're obviously in need of extreme mental therapy at an asylum. And I've reported you.
Posted by Jedi4 2 years ago
Jedi4
Why not both?
Posted by NoahMuns 2 years ago
NoahMuns
I don't know if pro is high or just mental
Posted by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
You guys do know how lasers work right?
Posted by Keeyan 2 years ago
Keeyan
Jeez, this looks ridiculously familiar. Oh wait.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by RevL8ion 2 years ago
RevL8ion
Jedi4, you're treating this as a joke. Get real.
Posted by Jedi4 2 years ago
Jedi4
No Jedism is a real religion
Posted by Birds 2 years ago
Birds
Wait... is this a joke?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
RevL8ionJedi4Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
RevL8ionJedi4Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's last round and his forfeit merit Conduct going to Con. Arguments to Con as Pro dropped everything in the final round.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
RevL8ionJedi4Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G (tied): initially a clear win for con, thanks to "Glucus was a prophet" who or what is a Glucus? "bullsh1t" words generally do not have numbers in them. "Whoooo's laughing noooow?" Please get your keyboard fixed... However con started having similar errors "ral" "d1ck" etc. CONDUCT (con): Pro plagiarizing himself does not cost conduct, but him forfeiting does. ARGUMENT (con): Largely from strength of rebuttals from con, such as catching the abysmal sourcing (which pro could have easily fixed instead of forfeiting...), pro of course tries to insist we should "Since he can view my other debate then look at my other debate. it didn't paste well.stop being a b1tch." Finially pro dropping everything in the last round "Vote Pro because I cant even read his argues" becoming the gist of his closing case (and literally half the round). SOURCES (tied): Con had none, but pro actually tried to claim top level domains, like entire news sites.
Vote Placed by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
RevL8ionJedi4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Scientificly this could never happen