The Instigator
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
airmax1227
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists (2)

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 8 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,381 times Debate No: 20383
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (8)

 

phantom

Pro

Please do not accept if you have completed under ten debates!

I want to debate someone who can actually finish it.


Resolved:
It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists.

I will be affirming the resolution.



Burden of Proof:

Shared (My future opponent may argue against that if he wants but I think it is natural for this debate that it is shared).


Definitions:

Possible - Being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization [1]

Unicorn - An animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead [2] (a few changes)

Flying pink unicorn - A unicorn that is of, or mostly, the color pink and has the ability to fly.

For this debate flying just means the ability.



Structure:

1st round: Acceptance.

2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal.

4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.



I have a few terms

That each participant have respectable behavior and good conduct.

No plagiarism

If needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link or in the comments section.


I will make my opening case in round two.



Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
airmax1227

Con

Accepted. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
phantom

Pro

Thank you for accepting. This should be a very interesting debate.

I would first like to let the viewers know I chose a flying pink unicorn almost randomly. Any object that probably did not exist would do, but the first bizarre unlikely thing that came into my head was a flying pink unicorn. Thus none of the attributes were specifically chosen for any particular reason other than that it helped make my point when I was arguing in another debates comments section. [1] Just thought I'd make that clear. :)

First of all let me lay out some foundations of what we are actually arguing.

Possibility - Being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization

My opponent has already gratefully accepted this definition. But what does it really mean? Well if I were to say the chances of ___ are ____. That means that it is a possibility. In other words if there is a chance of something happening or existing; no matter how low or miniscule that chance is, it is a possibility. So if the chances of me being Osama Bin Laden are 1.5 million to 1, it is still possible that I am Osama Bin Laden. Just very highly and unreasonably unlikely. Even if the chances of something is 999,999,999,999 followed by a 1,000 zeros, to 1, it is still possible. For if it was not possible than it would be impossible, and anything that is impossible obviously does not have any chance of happening. Therefore my opponent will have to argue that the chances of there being a flying pink unicorn is absolutely zero. I hope my opponent and all the viewers agree on that.



Now let's get down to the grit of it.

There is the question of whether impossibility even exists. Through the use of paradoxes you might be able to make an argument that impossibility does exist. But seeing as I don't need to prove there is no such thing as impossibility I won't completely go there. However if my opponent makes a good enough argument I may be committed to, though I do not see how a flying pink unicorn could be paradoxical. If my opponent could make a strong enough case to show that a flying pink unicorn is paradoxical (although I don't see how he could), I have a rebuttal awaiting that I think would be interesting enough. I will contend that when speaking literally we can very few times seriously say anything is impossible. In fact we can only really argue about probabilities. Most likely everyone would agree that there is probably no such thing as a flying pink unicorn, but probably most people would agree that there is a possibility that one exists.





The flying pink unicorn has no paradoxical characteristics

Probably the first thing we need to get out of the way. Let's look at the flying pink unicorns characteristics first.

1. Body and head of a horse
2. Has a horn on its forehead
3. Is of or mostly the color pink
4. Has the ability to fly

None of these contradict each other. 1 is in harmony with 2-4. 2 is in harmony with 1 and 3-4 etc...

I hope my opponent will concede this fact.





Personal witness argument

I will now submit the statement that I have seen a flying pink unicorn. My opponent cannot prove that I did not. It is not logically possible. To
refute this my opponent would have to prove the following.

1. There is no possibility that I was not lying.
2. There is no possibility that I'm not crazy, and thus did not imagine it.


My opponent cannot prove that it is impossible that I was not lying. How could he? If I saw a flying pink unicorn I would quite possibly make a debate like this. Therefore this debate might possibly have been the product from my actual personal experience, and not this testimony a product from this debate. There is no evidence that I am lying. And thus there is a possibility I am not.

My opponent cannot prove that it is impossible that I did not imagine it. Zero evidence whatsoever for this as well. Judging from this debate and my other ones it is evident that I am not crazy.






Infinite universe argument


There are arguments that the universe is infinite. My opponent will I hope, concede the fact that the universe might be infinite. If the universe is infinite, as we will assume it is for now, that means there is an infinite amount of planets. An infinite amount of planets would mean an infinite possibility of life forms. An infinite possibility of life forms includes a flying pink unicorn. Syllogismised (yes I know that's not a proper word, but it should be!), it would be like this.

1. There is a possibility of the universe being infinite.
2. An infinite universe would mean an infinite amount of planets.
3. An infinite amount of planets would mean an infinite amount of possible lifeforms.
4. An infinite amount of possible life forms would include a flying pink unicorn.
5. It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists.



Defense of premises

1. There are scientific and philosophical arguments that points to the fact that the universe might be infinite.[2][3]. Polls also suggest a large amount of people believe it to be so.[4] Physicist Joseph Silk says that we do not know. That both an infinite and a finite universe are possible.[5] Therefore it is possibly infinite.

2. This makes perfect sense. The universe is made up of planets stars and other objects. If the universe is infinite than there would have to be an unlimited amount of stars and planets, no matter how mind boggling that might be. If we take a section of the universe and make a measurement of how many planets there are on average per square amount of space, then if we apply that average to an infinite universe, the amount of planets would be infinite.

3. This also makes perfect sense. Earth has life forms on it, thus we must assume there must be life forms on some other planets. Since the amount of planets might be infinite the amount of possible life forms might also be infinite. Even if there was only one in every one hundred or one thousand planets that contained life forms, an infinite universe would have an unlimited amount of planets and thus the ratio is irrelevant.

4. There is no contention in this premise I think. A flying pink unicorn is a life form therefore it would have to be included in a list of possible life forms.

5. This conclusion follows from the premises, meaning that the argument is valid. The conclusion and the premises are logical, and proven meaning that the argument is sound. If there is an infinite amount of possible life forms, and if a flying pink unicorn is a life form, than there is possibly a flying pink unicorn in existence.


I have shown my argument to be both valid and sound, thus proving that a flying pink unicorn possibly exists.






Cannot prove the non-existence of anything


My final argument is that it is not possible to prove something does not exist.

But what is my opponents burden? To prove that it can't possibly exist. In other words my opponent has to prove the non-existence of the flying pink unicorn in order to win this debate. A logically impossible thing to do. My opponent cannot prove his case.



I hand it over to the con.


Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org......
[2] http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk......
[3] http://www.ronpisaturo.com......
[4] http://vote.sparklit.com......
[5] http://www.esa.int...







airmax1227

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Before I begin to rebut my opponent's opening round, I would like to state that I have agreed to all definitions and further understand our definition of unicorn is simply a horse like creature with a horn in its head, and in this case pink, with the ability to fly.

With that said, lets begin...

Possibility

I agree to my opponent's point here. I have a burden of proof to show that the chances of the existence of "a flying pink unicorn" are 0%.

FPU paradoxical characteristics

1. Body and head of a horse

No arguments here.

2. Has a horn on its forehead

I'll agree this is possible as a ‘scientific anomaly', that a horse would grow a horn. While it is unlikely, it's certainly within the realm of reason.

3. Is of mostly the color pink

Stranger things have happened, and if my opponent told me he saw a pink horse with a horn in its head and called it a unicorn, I might be inclined to not think he was crazy.

4. Has the ability to fly

This is indeed contradictory to the first point, and is where the argument goes off the rails.
There is no scientific possibility of a flying horse. It is contrary to our accepted ideas of biology and evolutionary sciences, as well as our understanding of flight in the animal kingdom.

There is no record of any such animal ever having existed, or the possibility that it ever could, given the characteristics we see for all animals capable of flight.

From the earliest examples of vertebrates capable of flight, pterosaurs [1], and bats [2] to the common birds we see today, several characteristics are always apparent. Obviously wings, but ignoring that, the form and weight of the animal are crucial. I will likely go into this further in a later round.

Horses on the other hand, are heavy, four legged land mammals. ‘Land mammal' (usually meant to exclude dolphins and whales etc.) naturally does seem redundant here, as the bat is the only mammal even capable of sustained flight. (Not to confuse ‘flying mammals' that actually ‘glide' instead of fly)[3][4]

Therefore, "Has the ability to fly" Is indeed contradictory to "Has the body and head of a horse", and is entirely impossible.

I'd like to add that while the "flying horse" has no scientific basis or possibility, it's fairly common in folklore. This is not however any type of basis for its possible presence throughout existence, as the flying horse is just the folklore version of modern sci-fi's flying car. It reflects the Human aspiration towards flight and freedom. But its existence is either elusive, or impossible, as in the case of the flying horse.

Personal witness argument

My opponent says he has in fact seen a flying pink unicorn, and says that I cannot prove that he did not. Since I have proven (or will prove) a flying horse is scientifically impossible, I believe the only logical conclusion would be to assume my opponent is lying.

To refute this, my opponent makes two points he says I must argue:

1. "There is no possibility I was not lying"

For it to be an honest statement, horses must be capable of flight. They are not.

2. There is no possibility I am not crazy, and thus did not imagine it.

If my opponent believes he saw a flying horse it could logically be concluded that he is crazy, but I would agree that he wouldn't believe it to be imagined if he were.

"There is no evidence that I am lying. And thus there is a possibility I am not."

The evidence of lying is in the impossibility of the statement. Therefore anyone who considers "possible" to be that which is within the realm of our collective understanding would consider the statement to be a lie, or that of someone crazy.

"Judging from this debate and my other ones it is evident that I am not crazy."

My opponent is making a hypothetical statement and defends it by saying he is not crazy by using non-hypothetical evidence for his lack of craziness. This reasoning does not follow.

Ultimately the "personal witness argument" only has merit if it comes with credibility. If a world-renowned biologist claims to have spliced together a flying horse, perhaps then there would be a .01% chance of its existence. Since no scientist is making this claim, or ever will, it remains at 0%.

Infinite Universe argument

I have no problem at all with this argument as long as it stays within the realm of our scientific understanding and thus within the arena of what we consider to be possible.

1. There is a possibility of the universe being infinite

I agree.

2. An infinite universe would mean an infinite amount of planets

Agreed again.

3. Infinite amount of planets would mean an infinite amount of possible life forms

Life form formation is limited to a set of parameters, and is therefore not entirely infinite. While we may never be able to calculate how many different possibilities there are, scientists can take reasonable guesses as to what type of life forms would evolve given certain circumstances.

Even silicone (as opposed to carbon) based life is being theorized and is not out of the realm of possibility. However, one must still use scientific basis for any life form theorized, and "the flying horse" cannot be included.

4. An infinite amount of possible life forms would include a flying pink unicorn

All life conforms to certain scientific realities. It evolves based on its environment and stimuli, and develops accordingly. Should a mammal be required to have flight for any reason, the rest of its development would be adjusted as well. In the instance of a horse, our understanding of biology would lead us to assume that given the realities of flight-capable creatures, it would need to change its form significantly.

At the point in which this type of animal would be capable of flying, (its body sleeker and lighter, its spinal and bone structure altered) it would no longer even be considered a horse, making the existence impossible, and even the concept an oxymoron…

5. It is possible that a flying unicorn exists

…Therefore a flying, horse-like creature does not exist, and couldn't possibly exist. The flying horse has no scientific basis or possibility at all, and perhaps that's why it's so pervasive in our imaginations.

Proving non-existence

I have begun to make a reasonable argument, (which I will likely continue and expand upon in later rounds) that a flying pink horse-like creature is indeed impossible. I obviously cannot provide direct evidence of a negative, but will easily be able to provide enough scientific basis to show that the existence of such a creature is impossible, thus negating this argument, and the resolution.

I will conclude my rebuttals of this round for now and conclude with a simple summary:

A flying pink unicorn is indeed impossible because it contradicts scientific fact and nature itself. "Possibility" must be contained to our basic realm of understanding, and an FPU directly contradicts even our basic biological understanding of animals capable of flight.

Further, a FPU is an entirely illogical culmination of evolution, being unlike anything we have encountered in any fossil records, as well as being structurally (weight; body and bone structure and capable of flight) impossible.

A flying horse-like creature makes as much sense as a mammal with gills. Not only would the existence of such an animal be illogical, it would also be impossible. [5]

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to his response.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
phantom

Pro

My opponent makes one sole argument to defend his case and refute my own. He does nitpick a bit at some minor points but overall there is only one real contention he puts forth. This is very easily rebutted. In fact all it needs is one sentence for response, and I will, I think, have won this debate. But I of course will go further than that. The scientific laws of our planet Earth do not apply to every world in the universe.



My opponent basically puts forth the weight of the FPU as reason why it would not be able to fly. What is his reasoning behind this? He reasons that because all other animals ever known to earth would never have been able to fly with a heavy weight, such as the FPU would have, than it cannot exist. Allow me to point out the major flaw in my opponents argument. My opponent is using the laws of the earth to support his claim. Namely the force of gravity which is basically what weight is. Gravity is different in every planet. Thus my opponents argument has been negated. For example the moon has a much lower force of gravity than the earth and thus flying there would be much easier. We must conclude of course that many many planets would not have a force of gravity strong enough to keep the FPU from flying.


My opponent also assumes wings are the only tool necessary for flying. It is likely that there are other possible methods of flying, especially when we take into account the possibility of an infinite universe. Let me also go as far as saying, in places where gravity might be very low, it could be said that even humans could fly. For flying is basically propelling yourself through the air. It was never defined in this debate, but let's not be semantical. If a life form was able to move about through the air without gravity pushing it to the ground we would say it is flying. Thus a pink horse with a horn in its head could be able to fly in certain circumstances without the use of wings.


I would also like to point out one occasion where my opponent, in attempting to rebut me, makes a statement that would instead advocate my case.


//Ultimately the "personal witness argument" only has merit if it comes with credibility. If a world-renowned biologist claims to have spliced together a flying horse, perhaps then there would be a .01% chance of its existence. Since no scientist is making this claim, or ever will, it remains at 0%.//

My opponent is saying that if a world-renowned biologist were to make the claim that he had spliced together a flying horse, then we would have to believe it a small possibility. Therefore he is accidentally conceding the fact that it is possible to exist. For if he believes that it might be true if a biologist were to make the claim, then he believes it might be true. I don't see how this could not count as concession.


I have fulfilled my burden of proof my opponent has not at all. As my opponents arguments have been thoroughly dismantled, let me just asses everything quickly.

Conclusions

Paradoxical characteristics.

As shown my opponent has provided no paradoxical characteristics in the least. He attempts too, but the laws of earth are completely different too that of other planets.


Personal witness argument

My opponent claims to have refuted me by attempting to affirm the impossibility of the statement. But it is not in the least bit impossible as I have shown thus I extend this argument.

If my opponent thinks that I might be crazy as he suggests then I will just ignore that.


Infinite Universe argument

My opponent does make one change to my third premise. Third premise being, "An infinite amount of planets would mean an infinite amount of possible life forms".

His adjustment is that it must include a set of parameters. If my opponent makes an argument that I believe I will need to argue against my opponents adjustment than I will do so. However even with this minor change my case still works.


Non-existence

My opponent still needs to show how the FPU is contrary to any hard facts.




My opponent attempts to use the laws of the earth to advocate his case. Namely gravity. These laws are different everywhere in the universe. Not is this just a possibility but a scientific fact. The FPU would easily be able to fly in many certain circumstances, such as when the force of gravity is very low.



Vote pro
airmax1227

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Universal scientific laws

"My opponent is using the laws of the earth to support his claim."

My opponent is correct that I have been using ‘Earth laws' as a point of reference. Since I made a mistake of applying the argument to the typical winged-unicorns we see in lands of rainbows and sunshine, (similar to Earth) I will adjust the examples I use. The broader point of my argument will remain the same.

To reframe the argument I will use whatever examples my opponent burdens me with in our definitions of an FPU.
"…Flying is basically propelling yourself through the air. It was never defined in this debate, but let's not be semantical"
I don't believe I'm at risk of being accused of using semantics, but if my opponent would like me to assume our flying pink unicorn doesn't have wings, I'll do so, as it has no effect on the validity of my argument.

Since we can't assume this FPU has wings I'll have to show it's impossible, whether this pink, horse like creature is flying with wings, floating on the moon, or flying commercial on British Airways.

A horses' weight is just an example I was using as something that is horse-like. Since a lower gravity environment would make this less relevant, I will increase the number of horse-like attributes that I cite.

Regardless if this creature has wings or not, we will have to theorize how it would evolve.

In the wingless example, we can assume it would exist on a small planet with low gravity. The creature's weight would presumably keep it fixed to the ground, but regardless of that, we would have to imagine a methodology for lift off.
Since horses' legs are formed in a manner that optimizes forward thrust and leverage, capable of moving its large body very quickly, we are aware of some key components to its movement. [1]

It cannot jump vertically with any kind of significant momentum, but can gain great power when leaping at some speed. This means our FPU cannot take flight by ‘vertical lift' like a helicopter, but closer to something resembling an airplane.
Once our wingless FPU gets a running start, jumps, he/she/it is now air born and soon flying through the air. The problem now is without wings this creature has no way of controlling altitude, speed, or balance.

In my opponent's example of the moon, this FPU would now literally be zooming out into space. While being wingless makes more sense in this environment, this creature is still at the mercy of forces beyond its control.

Let's assume this wingless FPU somehow did evolve to have a way to fly functionally on an Earth like planet with low gravity. Without wings it would need another manner of control, something like fins on its back and sides to control angles and speed.

Finally, when landing, a horse's legs would need to be angled, and designed, to handle a hard landing at fast speeds. Something horse-like is obviously not designed this way, and if this characteristic were to be applied, several others would need to be as well. Spinal structure, bone density, perhaps the circulatory system and even type of feet. [2] (There is also no example of a 4 legged animal than can fly in all of nature)

After all this is applied to an animal, living in the optimal planetary conditions for something ‘horse like' to be able to fly, it would then no longer even resemble what we consider to be a horse. It's possible this description of a wingless ‘unicorn' would come closer to resembling something like a fish with legs, and just vaguely (if at all) look like a horse.
I'd also like to point out if this is just a dead pink horse with a horn in its head floating through space- my opponent's BOP is not fulfilled, as this wouldn't constitute ability to fly, but ability to be dead in space and float.

A horse-like creature exists on Earth because the conditions are right for it to exist. Should we adjust these conditions slightly, we would have to consider the ramifications of such an action.

The dramatic changes from adding a feature to a subject that is entirely opposed to this addition, makes it that much more improbable, or in this case impossible.

Therefore, adding flight (with wings or without) to an animal that has been optimized for survival on the ground would change all the characteristics that actually make this creature horse-like at all.

Horses are horse-like because they do horse things, in a horse compatible world. Once they evolve into a species that floats around aimlessly in space they become something different altogether, and would be closer to evolving into tumbleweed.

While the FPU almost seems plausible, it makes no more sense than debating a likelihood of evolution culminating in inside-out monkeys. It would be impossible for such a species to exist, regardless of the planet, because these rules are universal.

This is the bottom line:

At the point in which a horse becomes a flight capable creature and species, it is no longer a horse, or resembling anything like a horse. Even the concept, is a contradiction in terms, and is therefore impossible.

"…He is accidentally conceding the fact that it is possible to exist."

My opponent seems to believe an argument using a theoretical example, to reach a specific hypothetical conclusion, should be perceived as a concession.

A = Reality
B = Potential reality

I argued:
If X, then maybe Y = B
B is not = to A because X is impossible.

Therefore the logic in my opponent's argument here isn't sound. I assure my opponent that if I intend to concede I will make it clear.

Paradoxical characteristics

A Flying horse, even as a pink, four legged fish type unicorn thing, is impossible, even under optimal planetary condition for such a creature to exist. It contradicts our entire scientific understanding for how life forms would evolve under any circumstances.

It's not only gravity that makes this concept impossible. It is the entire idea of being horse-like. Why would something evolve to be able to fly, while still being optimized to be exclusively on the ground? It's entirely counter intuitive.

Personal witness

An unverifiable statement by an individual has no credibility, or value, scientifically. It has no effect on what people should consider possible and does not increase the possibilities of anything.

If my opponent would like to argue it theologically, that I should have faith in the existence of the FPU because of his word, then arguments from religious texts, philosophy, and anthropological data would be fascinating to read.

Simply saying something doesn't make it possible, evidence must be presented, or it should be dismissed (if the thing being stated isn't impossible (like an FPU) it should be investigated, if credible).

"If my opponent thinks that I might be crazy as he suggests then I will just ignore that."

I do not actually believe that my opponent is crazy. He seems sane enough. I don't think stating he has seen an FPU is because he is either crazy or lying, I believe it is due to him being in a debate in which he has to argue that it is possible it exists.

Since there are no ‘credible' (credible as opposed to random) outside witnesses, this argument can be dismissed.

Infinite Universe

The parameters of science have dictated that the FPU is impossible under even very specific conditions.

Non-existence

Hundreds of facts directly contradict the potential existence of an FPU. Zero hard facts point to the potential existence of an FPU. This puts the FPU in the impossible category.
Should my opponent wish to theorize how a flying horse would evolve and why, then we might have our first ever ‘flying horse theory'. Although, simply explaining why a horse would develop a horn and be pink, might be difficult enough.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as it has been a fun and interesting experience so far.

[1] http://ultimatehorsesite.com...
[2] http://www.gaitedhorses.net...
Debate Round No. 3
phantom

Pro

I really don't see how we can even consider the cons case as anything near credible. My opponent has averted almost completely to the argument that the FPU would lose its horse like qualities during the evolutionary process, and that evolution could not bring it to the defined said life form, due to spinal and bone structure. In other words, he asserts that there is a zero percent possibility that the quite random, bizarre, wandering evolutionary theory could in any chance, not even one in ten trillion, produce the said being, in one of an infinite amount of planets. Let me stress this more. Suppose there are one trillion planets that contain life forms. That's an astronomical amount. Can we really believe there is NO possibility the discussed life form could not exist in at least one of these planets?? It would be very narrow minded to assume so. But even this voluminous number is only a tiny fraction of the amount of inhabited planets an infinite universe would hold. In fact multiply one trillion by any number and it would be impossible to get anywhere near infinity! The fact that the universe might be infinite is a truly amazingly profound and mind boggling contemplation!! Isn't it?




//It contradicts our entire scientific understanding for how life forms would evolve under any circumstances.//

Absurd. As if evolution is a well established and observed scientific fact. As if science is not one of the most unstable philosophies of man. Macro evolution, while a very compelling theory, has not been near properly observed. We can't know for a fact what evolution can or cannot produce, as my opponent assumes, especially on planets we have not even studied. Science, while very progressed, is constantly changing. New knowledge is always being discovered, and past accepted theories discarded. Thus, it is absurd to pretend to know for a hard fact that a horse like creature with wings could not in any possibility evolve.




Flying Without Wings


My opponent really does not at all refute the fact that their might be some other natural device possible for flying other than wings. We've only observed one method of flying in nature, but does that mean that there are no other possible ways? It is quite possible that there exists another method of flying.



My opponents conceded point

Con basically says my testimony of seeing the FPU cannot be considered as a possibility because it is not made by a credible witness. I think the viewers can easily find this proves my case. For my opponent believes that if someone credible were to make the statement then we would have to count it as a possibility. It is possible that I am a credible witness. Therefore it is possible that I was not lying or crazy.



// Hundreds of facts directly contradict the potential existence of an FPU. Zero hard facts point to the potential existence of an FPU. This puts the FPU in the impossible category.//

First my opponent makes the completely false statement that hundreds of facts contradict my case. Having us believe that he has presented all these facts. He has presented only a few so called facts so I do not know what prompted con to make this greatly exaggerated assertion. Second con makes the fallacy of assuming that we need hard facts to prove the existence of the FPU. I don't need to do anything of the sort.



The so called hard facts my opponent puts forth are those of evolutionary process. Not only have we not observed macro evolution, but we have only studied evolution pertaining to the earth. Evolution on other possible planets is something that has not been in the least bit studied, nor could it. Yet my pretends that we know for a fact what could and could not evolve in these other worlds!! Science is something that has not been studied in other planets where life might be. We know HARDLY ANYTHING about what could live in the possibly infinite amount of inhabited planets, because we have no knowledge of these planets whatsoever. Therefore there can be no hard facts about life formation on these worlds. My opponent needs absolute hard facts for us to consider his case. This is something he is greatly lacking.

My opponents case is dismally fallible.


To my opponent, thank you for the most enjoyable debate.
airmax1227

Con

By the end of this round the voters must ask themselves if my opponent has been able to effectively assert that an FPU is capable of existing, as well as his broader point that ‘everything is possible', as it is the foundation for all of his arguments.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Voters need to consider that even if accepting that ‘anything is possible', has my opponent asserted that an FPU is possible? Has he made a sufficient argument that an FPU specifically, can exist?

While the arguments to consider the possibility of anything are not without merit, to ask someone to consider the existence of that which contradicts our understanding of basic science is not within the same realm as being open minded. To assert such a case requires some explanation of how such a being would manifest and why it would do so. Has my opponent even attempted any such explanation?

Before returning to those questions, I will address my opponent's final assertions.

"Macro evolution, while a very compelling theory, has not been near properly observed."

While much is to be desired of any theory, on this level of science the observable facts are pretty basic. Animals can be grouped into categories based on similar traits and anatomy. Inferences can be made on behavior and genetic manifestation. That horses don't fly isn't something that requires delving into more dicey areas of science.

One can easily observe why a horse is like the way it is. Other animals have characteristics that similarly reflect their environment and we classify them appropriately. From this we can observe that life conforms to parameters that maximize its potential for survival.

Something horse-like fits into a very specific classification. A mammal that, as we know them as they are today- have been changed and formed through breeding by humans for very specific purposes. For it to be altered to another extreme would change its classification entirely.

In other words, if life conforms to the simple facts we do know about, something that flies cannot be horse-like.

Flying without wings

Whether the unicorn has wings or not does nothing to effect whether or not it's possible. I argued in the previous round to the very definitions my opponent requested and assumed the FPU was wingless. My argument still stands that a wingless flying horse like thing is impossible.

Conceded Point/Personal witness argument

"It is possible that I am a credible witness."

It's not. The statement ("An FPU exists", or "I have seen an FPU") has ‘Zero Credibility'. There is definitively, (as in, to define ‘zero credibility') as much reason to believe the statement, as there is to dismiss it. In this case less, because it's made with a verifiable intent to distort reality.

This argument has been logically fallible since initially argued. I have not conceding anything, I have simply been pointing out ways in which this argument could potentially be reasonable in an effort to point out how illogical it is.
Since these arguments were never made, (and couldn't be made, because they require impossible requisite conditions) the ‘personal witness argument' remains without merit and thoroughly negated in perpetuity throughout the universe.

"First my opponent makes the completely false statement that hundreds of facts contradict my case. Having us believe that he has presented all these facts."

I apologize to my opponent if he thought this was misleading. Character limits make it difficult for me to address all the ‘fact' problems with the FPU.

"My opponent needs absolute hard facts for us to consider his case."

Since my opponent insists, here are 10 (instead of hundreds) reiterated ‘facts' that don't jive with the FPU. I believe each one of these could be broken down further into multiple dozens each of other facts that contradict the FPU (thus giving us hundreds):

1) Horses generally aren't pink [1]
2) Unicorns don't exist.
3) No four legged animals can fly [3]
4) The bat is the only mammal that can fly
5) Horses are optimized to run fast on the ground
6) Horses can't fly
7) Horses have only been seen on Earth
8) All known flying animals have wings
9) The heaviest flying animals weigh around 40lbs [2]
10) Horses don't have horns [4]

These facts, among others, contradict the existence of the FPU. When combined with my other arguments, and the dozens of other facts each can be broken down into, they prove it's impossible.

In this last round I have made no new arguments, I have simply rebutted my opponent's final attacks, and reiterated my main two points;

1) The FPU is impossible because of simple scientific understanding of the animal kingdom,
2) The FPU is an illogical culmination and combination of characteristics.

The burden of proof is upon my opponent and I equally. I believe I have shown why an FPU IS impossible, my opponent has failed to show why it isn't.

His most focal argument is that nothing is impossible.

Since it seems it's impossible to show how an FPU could exist, and possible to show why it cannot, the resolution is negated.

Have a wonderful day, and vote Con.

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate and wish him well on all of his future debates and endeavors.

[1] http://www.horsecolor.com...
[2] http://www.victorialodging.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://animals.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
- I know you don't hate me.
-If you voted all 7 it would be countered thus you initial intent would fail.
-I retract my comment about you being stubborn.
-This way people won't counter it.
-You can't imply that you want to make this a tie. Then make it a tie a short while latter and expect people to not view it as a Vbomb. Like come on. Do know what that feels like?
-I can and do accept the fact that people will vote against me. You are the first person I pm'd about a vote in months.

Last argument, you should never vote on any debate if any amount of large personal bias effects your vote. Thus you shouldn't have voted on sources, because bias effected your vote.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
And also, please accept the fact that I voted against you and understand that not everyone on this site will vote for you.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Please realize the fact that I am not responding back because I am stubborn. I am not responding back because I do not regularily check this debate.

In fact, if I do not hate you. I just mildly dislike you. If I hated you, I would give all 7 points to CON, and I have reason to do so.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
If I were like you I am completely certain that I would right now go onto one of your debates and vote against you. Just think about that. You know it's true. But I hold fairness very highly so I would never do that.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
And you don't know what sources are for. Every time sources were neccessary I used them. And my opponent used wikapedia for times
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Vbomb is SO obvious. I just lost respect for you.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
//Stop arguing with my reasons,//

No, you've ignored my important facts and I've basically shattered your RFD.

//That just makes me want to tie the debate.//

That would be incredibly dishonest. There is nothing at all wrong with arguing with RFD's.

//Also, I did read the entire debate//

Nice argument.

//Therefore, if PRO can come up with good reasons and is able to explain himself logically, I believe PRO deserves the win, as it is much harder on his half, even if CON was able to completely destroy PRO's arguments.//

Even if con were to shatter his arguments? Wow, I don't know what to call that except dishonest and incredibly unfair to con.

//This was my justification for voting arguments on your debate.//

Wait what was? You basically ignore the main part of my complaints. You've done nothing to justify the physics argument and I've pointed out that it was almost entirely dropped by my opponent.

Like I said all you would have had to have done is switch the words physics with biological and I would have been fine. Instead you chose to use the completely shattered argument as basis for your decision.

This is going nowhere and you're never going to convince me your RFD was legit so I understand if you only respond to the minimal.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Stop arguing with my reasons, honestly. That just makes me want to tie the debate. You said that I owe it to you to respond, which was the only reason I posted that length RFD for you to justify my vote.

Also, I did read the entire debate, and no, I do have extensive experience in debate, as I debate in tournaments in real life. In fact, the BOP consideration is a huge factor in determining which side argued better.

Take this debate for example.
Resolved: Murder should be made legal.

As side PRO, you have a much harder time proving why murder should be legal, your BOP is higher than CON's, who can easily come up with arguments.

Therefore, if PRO can come up with good reasons and is able to explain himself logically, I believe PRO deserves the win, as it is much harder on his half, even if CON was able to completely destroy PRO's arguments.

This was my justification for voting arguments on your debate.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
//So it's okay if people don't read your debate if they vote for you? I doubt 16kadams read the entire debate.//

I don't see any indication he didn't read the debate. I think he's gotten allot better at voting. Plus can you really see ANYONE attacking someones RFD when the voter used arguments you held throughout the debate as their basis? This does not at all make me a hypocrite.

//You may not agree with me, and that is fine. But I truly think CON had better arguments because of the large physics factor.//

CON almost completely dropped that argument. If you had substituted the word biological for physics I would not have questioned your vote.

--

I don't see how you can think cons side was a lot harder to prove but still think he did a better job, but whatever...

You say that we both achieved our BOP but the fact that he had a much harder BOP warrants giving him arguments.

I have a huge problem with this. You've only been on this site for two months so I'm not going to assume you knew better, but any time BOP is equal and both sides accomplish their burden it should ALWAYS result in a tie for arguments. Therefore on this factor alone you should not give him arguments. If you had given him conduct for good effort on a tough debate that would have been somewhat justified, but you should NEVER give one person the arguments if both participants fulfill their BOP and burden of proof is agreed as shared.

//I believe that PRO did not refute CON's physics contention well enough. Simply saying, there is no guarantee that the physics is the same on every planet in the universe, is a cheap shot, to be frank. It takes little intelligence to come up with that refutation.//

If I did not refute it well enough why did he almost completely drop it? Second I did not just simply say "there is no guarantee that the physics is the same on every planet in the universe." I devoted whole paragraphs in my refutation. Your facts are skewed.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Phantom, you have such a huge ego and a huge hypocrite.

So it's okay if people don't read your debate if they vote for you? I doubt 16kadams read the entire debate.

Furthermore, I gave arguments to CON because personally, I believed that he was able to prove his side of the case much better than yours. You may not agree with me, and that is fine. But I truly think CON had better arguments because of the large physics factor. Also, CON has a much higher burden of proof than PRO in this debate, as it is much harder for CON to prove his side of the case than for PRO to. As a result, I think CON did really well given the circumstances and achieved his BOP. I understand both of you were able to prove your BOP. However, this case is PRO weighted, and much easier for PRO to prove his side. Therefore, I gave arguments to CON, taking this into consideration. I believe that PRO did not refute CON's physics contention well enough. Simply saying, there is no guarantee that the physics is the same on every planet in the universe, is a cheap shot, to be frank. It takes little intelligence to come up with that refutation. As a result, I don't think PRO deserves to win this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 2 years ago
Yep
phantomairmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Greatest Paradox Ever, Pro very nice job, and i believe I've actually seen a flying pink unicorn, somewhere in Miami i think. Con good attempt but i didn't feel as if your arguments successfully refuted the entirety of Pro's Paradox argument.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
phantomairmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Pro understood that this debate was about logical possibility, not scientific possibility. Con only argues that an FPU is scientifically impossible and unreasonable to believe, neither of which negate the resolution so his arguments don't apply. Pro established that an FPU is possible. Update: Pro wins sources to offset HP's votebomb, as illustrated in the comments.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
phantomairmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CON is able to prove why it is impossible that a flying pink unicorn can exist because of the laws of physics. This was much more important, I believe than the possiblity argument by PRO. Also, on a second more thorough examination of the debate, I discovered that CON was able to utilize his sources much more effectively, in fact, backing up his claims alot better than PRO did with sources = sources to con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
phantomairmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued science, yet logically, as pro pointed out, it is indeed possible. Also there is no absolute zero probability, pro proved this. Anything is possible, hence a pro win.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
phantomairmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: .
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
phantomairmax1227Tied
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: I have to side with Hardcore on the conduct point. If Pro is going to insult people who comment or vote on his debate, he shouldn't be debating. Sending a voter an insult by PM is beyond the pale. If Pro doesn't like losing conduct points, he shouldn't indulge in flagrantly bad conduct.
Vote Placed by Wnope 2 years ago
Wnope
phantomairmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con confuses the the concepts of "zero probability" as statistical insignificance and "zero probability" as a deductive impossibility. Con was silly to accept this resolution. It's fish in a barrel.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
phantomairmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This a debate on the semantics of "horse." Basically, can a flying pink horse with a horn still meet the definition of "horse." It's a borderline case of semantics, but Pro had the burden to prove it does. I give the nod to Con because of that. More in Comments.