The Instigator
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
RyouofFunce
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,041 times Debate No: 20140
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

phantom

Pro

RyouofFunce wanted me to send him this challenge so here it is.




Resolved:
It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists

I will be affirming the resolution.

Burden of Proof:

BOP rests on me.



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 should 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...




RyouofFunce

Con

Haha Thank you for making this debate!

Definitions accepted.

I will be debateing there is no possiblility that a Unicorn, which is also pink, which can somehow also fly, exist.

Sources I will use as follow.

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

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

I.) 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.

II.) 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 (except thett who has seen one apparently), but probably most people would agree that there is a possibility that one exists.

Although it isn't completely necessary, I will submit a few illustrations that make it possible for a flying pink unicorn to exist. My opponent will have to prove that there is zero chance of any of them actually being true. I will submit the fact that all of the following are unlikely, but I would like to stress that the likelyhood of these events is irrelevant.

III.) 1. Let's go back to one thing I mentioned earlier. Thett3, in the comments section of this debate, said that he has seen one! Quote>
"The flying pink unicorn exists, I have seen it!" <EndQuote. At first you would say, "he must have been joking." But do we really know that? I hear you say "then he must have been lying to try to mess with us, I mean it is Thett we're talking about!" But can we really know? "Then", you say, "if he's not joking or lying he would have to be crazy. That would explain allot!" But we can't know any of this? It is possible that Thett wasn't lying, joking or crazy, and therefore it's possible one exists. While it isn't probable, it is possible.

(Sorry for the swipes thett. I couldn't resist ^_-)

Therefore to refute this my opponent would to prove the following.
1. There is no possibility that thett was not lying.
2. There is no possibility that thett was not joking.
3. There is no possibility that thett is not crazy, and thus did not imagine it.


IV.) 2. My second illustration, which I believe is even stronger than the first, is as follows. 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] 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.

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.

4. This is undeniable 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 is 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.



Well that was fun! I look forward to my opponents contentions and rebuttals.

Sources

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

Con

I thank my blessed opponent for his dignified response. Let me analyze what we are discussing.

"an animal, with a twisted horn, a deer's feet, a goat's beard, the rump of a deer, the head of a horse, and a lion's tail." In addition it must also possess the ability to fly without any form of wings or rockets or anything, (if it does it will not be a unicorn anymore.) Furthermore it must also be pink."

First of all, lets examine the subject at hand. A key question is, whether a flying pink unicorn exist or not. I believe my opponent agrees with me that nothing can be neither existing nor none existing. Something has to exist or not exist, and cannot hang in the middle. It must either rest on the probability of 1, or on the probability of 0. (the only case in which a probability greater than 0 and less than 1 is used is for math problems such as how many possibilities are there to arrange 5 red cars and 10 blue cars in random order. Since we are dealing with a flying pink unicorn, we must let it rest on the probability of 0 or 1)

Thus lets first conclude the flying pink unicorn exist, as our friend thett3 has pointed out. (On the condition that he is not crazy, lying or any of those thing my opponent phantom pointed out.) Thus the probability rests on 1. If the FPU exist, then we have taken the problem out of the shrouds of the unknown. Thus there is no longer any possibility or probability to it. If the FPU does exist you cannot say there is a possibility it exist, but instead that the FPU does exist. Thus there is no long the question "is there a possibility the FPU exist."

Now let's conclude our friend Thett3 is a liar and a cheat, :D and he have never seen the FPU. Since the sources my opponent provides explicitly states the Unicorn, any kind of it, whether it can fly, or is pink, or has a horn in the middle of its head, is a mythical animal. Key word mythical. The definition of mythical includes "nonexistent. Impossible, imaginary." Thus the flying pink unicorn is (unfortunately) nonexistent. The possibility is 0. A creature that is nonexistent cannot have even the smallest possibility of existing.

As I have pointed out, the FPU must either exist or not exist. Either way there is no possibility to the question, but instead cold iron fact of yes or no, possibility is out of the question.

Furthermore, to refute my opponent's argument about Thett3, I can claim, (just as Thett3 claimed that he has seen the Flying pink unicorn) that jesus descended upon me last night in a dream and told me the FPU does NOT exist. The same paragraph my opponent has made defending THett3 and now be used to defend my claim. You do not know if I am lying or crazy.

Conclusion

I have proved that something must either exist or does not exist. It is only if you censure and filter your head of the truth and attempt to remain in the darkness of doubt that you can argue in possibilities. Either way if the FPU exist or does not, there is no possibility to the question.

To you pro.
Debate Round No. 2
phantom

Pro

Sorry for the delay. Other things pushed this to the back of my mind.

My opponent completely drops much of my arguments, and the rest of what he says is either irrelevant or null. He also attempts to change definitions even after he already accepted them. Furthermore he acts as if those definitions have been in place the whole time, not even bothering to defend them, or show why they are better than mine. That's a clear conduct breach.

Too sum it up, most of what my opponent endeavors to do is to prove the non-existence of the flying pink unicorn. The major flaw to this is that you cannot prove the nonexistence of something. It's logically impossible. That is the reason why in almost every debate, like the existence of God, the one who advocates for the existence of an object has the burden of proof. You cannot prove the flying pink unicorn does not exist, unless possibly if it has contradictory characteristics, which it does not. Thus it might exist.

My opponent first starts out by attempting to change the definition of a unicorn. He said in the first round that he accepted my definitions thus I would like the viewers to consider this as a forfeit of the conduct point.

The definition I presented was this "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)"

My opponents definition is this, "an animal, with a twisted horn, a deer's feet, a goat's beard, the rump of a deer, the head of a horse, and a lion's tail."

I would like the viewers to drop my opponents definition as there is zero reason to accept it.

Next my opponent says it must also possess the ability to fly without any form of wings or rockets or anything, saying that if it did it would not be a unicorn. He provides no reasoning for why wings, or rockets even for that matter, would not make it a unicorn. Certainly it would be a different type of unicorn but different type of unicorn does not equal different creature.

Con then goes on to use some extremely faulty logic. This is basically his entire argument. He thinks that a flying pink unicorn has to have either the possibility of 0 or the possibility of 1. It's a bit hard to understand at first, but basically my opponent is saying if we don't know it exists, it doesn't exist. We have to be absolutely sure or we can't count it as any possibility. I would very much like my opponent to use this argument for a God exists debate. I'm sure it would be extremely laughed at. But let me seriously stress to the viewers that according to my opponents logic there is no possibility of God existing! Or aliens for that matter. I would like the viewers to drop my opponents ridiculous point.

Moving on my opponent AGAIN tries to change the definition. This time saying the words "mythical animal" were used in the definition. Like seriously!? Whats up con? Please stop changing the definitions after you already explicitly stated you had excepted them!

This is basically his argument against my contention that thett might have been telling the truth. He also used his first argument to refute this, but as we have already seen, my opponents first argument is complete bollocks. He also uses the analogy of him claiming to see Jesus. Saying it refutes his case, because he obviously didn't see Jesus. Well for one thett claimed a completely different thing, and did not say it was false like my opponent did. If my opponent were to make the claim that last night Jesus came to him in a dream and said the flying pink unicorn did not exist, then we would have to conclude my opponent was possibly telling the truth.

//As I have pointed out, the FPU must either exist or not exist. Either way there is no possibility to the question, but instead cold iron fact of yes or no, possibility is out of the question.//

This is ridiculous because this whole debate is about possibility.



My opponent does not even give the slightest response to my most important point. This drop alone I think should count as a win for me, because none of my opponents points in the least bit refute it, and my argument logically proves the possibility of a flying pink unicorn. I will reassert a portion of it here for convenience.

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.

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.


Defense of premises can be found in the previous round.

Why did my opponent not respond to that? Because it's not attackable. None of my premises you can refute, and thus I have easily proved its possible existence.
RyouofFunce

Con

RyouofFunce forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
phantom

Pro

Unfortunate, I was enjoying this debate.

EXTEND ARGUMENTS




RyouofFunce

Con

RyouofFunce forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Well I wouldn't want to stoop to that type of semantic cheap shot. Besides I think I can win easily enough this way and at least won't lose the conduct point for every vote :p
Posted by esisCOA 5 years ago
esisCOA
since no one defined "exists" then this is a easy win for the PRO, simply because if you can imagine a flying pink unicorn it "exists" in your imagination.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
You can't disprove the non-existence of anything. Forgot to put that in my first round.
Posted by sorry8140 5 years ago
sorry8140
well you cant DISprove the unicorn i suppose....
Posted by RyouofFunce 5 years ago
RyouofFunce
except I read it and am even now pondering a rebuttal :)
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
I was joking, but I actually think I could use it to demonstrate my case :)
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Haha lol, I'll see how this goes.... >:D
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
of course you can use it haha
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
@Thett, Great! You don't mind me using that in this debate right? :p

@JM_N, What the heck no! Read the comments on this debate http://www.debate.org...
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Is this some kind of 'Pony: Friendship is Magic' thingy? Wow so gurly.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Micromann 5 years ago
Micromann
phantomRyouofFunceTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con accepted definitions, but argued them in-round; Con forfeited multiple rounds; "It is only if you censure and filter your head of the truth and attempt to remain in the darkness of doubt that you can argue in possibilities." <-- Really?
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
phantomRyouofFunceTied
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: I read this debate a while ago and never voted. I liked it. Pro had crushing arguments even without the FF. Win.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
phantomRyouofFunceTied
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: Forfeit