Debate Rounds (4)
Just a few definitions to go off of:
Lizard People: beings from space/another dimension that are supposedly "mind controlling" us.
Exist: being truly alive within our nation, not fantasy
Space: Outer Space; another planet that can hold life
Dimension: another universe separated from our own. Requires advanced technology to go to other dimensions.
A) No Insulting the Opponent.
B) "Mind Control", "Illusions" and "It's true" (or anything along those lines) are not valid arguments without valid PROOF this is the case.
C) If you're quoting a website, post the link within that round.
D) If you time out, you will concede the debate.
E) Pro can give arguments Round 1, ask me questions, or just accept.
F) BoP is on Pro, as it is obvious that Donald Trump isn't a lizard (If Pro disagrees, I'll accept to his/her terms ONLY on this rule. Put the commenters will also have to agree with Pro that BoP should be shared between Pro and Con)
Luck to Pro, whoever may be accepting this debate.
I accept. Con says that we can split the BoP (in comment section), and the rules say I can accept, so I await my opponent's arguments.
If the evidence is faulty, then this means the presidents and government are not lizards and I win.
My evidence are as follows:
1) They have human features (skin, regular tongues, no claws). Therefore, they are human.
2) How would they come from another planet? We don't have the technology to go as far as we'd need to go (past our solar system. Scientists are still working on getting to mars!)
3) If they were indeed Lizard alien beings, society would point this out, and we would shoot them.
Pro must refute these 3 points and come up with why they DO exist in reality. I have to refute Pro's assertions.
Observation 1. As Zerubavel claims in his book The Fine Line, in the section "The Social Lens", big-r Reality is a continuum from which all societies cut up discrete chunks, making islands of meaning in what is otherwise an expanse of no inherent meaning; these islands of meaning may be different for each society in the ways that they are cut (differences in the way that marriage "ought" to be, for example), or some islands may exist in one society's archepelego that does not have another representation in another society's (the concept of "weeks" or specific hours for specific things in the Bushmen people of Africa don't exist, for example).
Zerubavel claims that reality is a continuum and the way that we cut it up is what meaning we make out of it. Therefore, reality is in a sense subjective, in that it can take many forms, all being components of the bigger picture. This means, in extension, that truth is a subjective component of the unattainable continuum that is Reality.
My arguments will be based around Zerubavel's claim and my extensions to it; lizard people subjectively are alive within the nation.
P1. Subjective truth is unfalsifiable, if it is made in good faith.
P2. At least some people have the subjective truth that lizard people are real and alive within the nation, made in good faith.
C1. Lizard people are necessarily real (cuts of the big-r Reality continuum in which mainstream society do not have)
Now, onto my opponent's arguments.
1. It may be true that these lizard people have human fetaures, just as much true that all actors that have makeup showing gruesome injuries must have injuries (which is not a claim made in good faith).
2. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because we can't go to Mars doesn't mean that a different lifeform can't go from other planets.
3. You are arguing from the "ad populum" fallacy - just because a majority don't believe it to be so means that it is not so. That's not a reason why they don't exist, it's just a fact. And they are not actually making these claims out of good faith, rather these claims are made from ignorance, which means that this argument isn't turnable by my observation. Basically, just because most of society hasn't found these out yet (ignorance of fact), doesn't mean that they don't necessarily exist.
Back to you con.
So... what you're saying is that they may or may not be real? Based off of a person's ideas. It's like saying "Unicorns exist because I have the belief". We don't know for a fact if Unicorns exist or not. Likely not, as with Lizard People! A person's opinion does not contribute to the existence of these lizard people. Do you have any photographic proof or anything of said nature that can convince me of their existence?
Your counters are:
A) " It may be true that these lizard people have human fetaures, just as much true that all actors that have makeup showing gruesome injuries must have injuries" The actors don't have injuries, the character they're playing as are injured. If you can prove the lizard people shape-shifted or are reptilian, please do so!
B) "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" I kind of have to agree with this point. But we can't find said technology in which these so called "lizard people" came here using.
C) " just because a majority don't believe it to be so means that it is not so." same could technically be said for demons, gods, and mythical beings. But we don't have good evidence (if any evidence) that these beings do in fact exist.
Refuting Pro's facts:
Google: This is just the Social Lens thing (basically saying "if you believe it's true, it's true"), which isn't true
VICE David Icke: This is just an interview with Icke. I'm not sure it's supposed to prove the existence of the Lizard People. (I watched Part 1 and 2)
If Pro can support his VICE evidence, please do. Other than that, I'm sure I'll be fine. I await your response.
What I am saying is that lizard people are real because at least some people believe in them with good faith, and Zerubavel claims that this is a cut from the continuum of big-r Reality, meaning that it is a component of the BIG Truth of the universe and the BIG Reality of it. Your example of "unicorns exist because I have the belief" is false, since it is these: 1. made in bad faith and 2. an argument from ignorance.
I don't need photographic proof of something that has a Reality in the universe - and if I provided one, it would be dismissed as photoshop or something simiar. It is necessarily true that they exist because of the infallibility of subjective truth - this you concede because you drop it. You essentially drop my conclusion since you drop the components of the conclusion.
My responses to yours:
1. You say that the actors are simply acting so of course they are not injured, that'd be insane! But, how do we know that these lizard people are not simply masquerading as humans and overtaking the government? I have already proven that lizard people exist through my syllogism, I need no more proof; you concede that my proof is true because you drop it.
2. You concede that just because we don't have the technology to do something doesn't mean that other civilisations do not.
3. You just shrug off my claim pointing to gods or demons or mythical beings. That's good and all, but that's besides the point and you are missing what I am saying.
1. It's a Google Book, which is just a preview of a bigger book that you can buy. The book is true, since it was written by Erivitar Zerubavel, a sociologist who has the credentials to make these sort of claims. Just saying that this isn't true without warrants means that your allegations of worthlessness are unfounded and should be ignored.
2. The Vice documentary was to prove that people actually had a good faith belief in lizard people. I'm not saying that the documentary is completely accurate, and I don't need to, I'm just showing that people believe in lizard people in good faith. That's all that I needed to show for my syllogism.
Con has actually given no offensive constructive reasons that lizard people don't exist, as their BoP is to do (and they agreed that they have the BoP). I have given a syllogism that proves that they must necessarily exist, and this syllogism was dropped by con. I see no reason I should not be given the win, even if my arguments are a bit obscure.
As far as we're concerned, Pro needs to prove one of these things:
- Belief = Reality (What people believe in is 100%, without a doubt, accurate and can be backed up with evidence other than the Social Lens)
People can have contradicting thoughts on the same matter. Some people believe in Bigfoot. Others think it doesn't exist, and it just a human pretending to be Bigfoot or a big gorilla. Does Bigfoot exist? If Bigfoot exists, then the Lizard People definitely exist! If a person's thoughts are right to assume a being exists, wouldn't it be logical to assume otherwise, and still possibly be correct? Without concrete evidence, it'd be hard to assume a position is correct. You can't just say a being exists, and it exists. Most people think the world will end soon. With great belief at that. But how are we to know if the world really will end? http://www.signs-of-end-times.com...
- Why the "Lizard People" haven't taken over right now.
If we truly are in the control of these Lizard People with advanced technology and powers, we'd already be their slaves. Sure, they might be gaining power by feeding off of blood and children and whatnot. But all they need to do is occasionally kidnap a sacrifice, and drug them so they're unconscious, allowing the Lizards to being their feeding ritual. (I know it's late in the debate, but it occurred to me) Upon doing this, they'd be powerful enough for world domination in a few years. So why didn't they think of this? If they had the technology to fly over here to Earth, they certainly should have some powerful sedatives (sleeping drugs) to use. And if not, they can go to a drug store. I mean, it's Obama, right? He's rich! He only needs to buy 50 lbs of drugs, right?
If Pro is able to refute my final stance, I'll concede.
Con wants another source that says that what we believet to be true means that it is necessarily required to be true, and I will gladly provide one that is somewhat related to what Zerubavel claims in his paper .
Con is cornered with what Zerubavel is claiming, and he can't refute what it is claiming, so he explicitly says that I have to prove that belief = reality using something other than the social lens. Fair enough, according to the idea of Strong Social Construction, there is no objective reality, just a subjective one where we inject meaning into it. Therefore, what we believe = the reality we live in, and the true continuum of reality.
People can have contradictory thoughts on something, that's totally fine. For example, in the game Barnga, there is the concept of aces being high in one table and aces being low in another area - both are within their realms of truth . I only have to prove that lizard people exist, and they do just like high aces do, your objective is to prove that they don't exist. I have proven that they must necessarily exist because of the Social Lens and because of strong social constructionism, and the syllogism that I used saying that has been completely dropped.
I don't need to offer reasons why the lizard people haven't taken over the world yet. That's insane - I'm not one (or am I, according to Zerubavel :o) so I can't tell you what their motives are. I don't know why I'd have to tell you what a group of lizard people are thinking even though I am not one.
In this debate, I have said that lizard people must necessarily exist due to what Zerubavel is claiming, and the validity of Zerubavel's message was never actually addressed, just who the person was. My syllogism which proves that lizard pepole must necessarily exist was actually NEVER attacked by con, meaning that it must be considered in its full weight. My opponent has claimed that: the lizards look like people, they don't have technology, we'd attack them, and they'd take over. The "lizards look like people" and "technology" claims that I made were thoroughly conceded by con. The "we'd attack them" idea was attacked by me where I said that was an ad populum fallacy and con never responded in a thoughtful manner, and for "they'd take over", you are asking me to prove why a group of lizards think something otherwise you win... yeah, that's not how debate works.
My point is unrefuted and stands at its complete weigh - lizard people exist. My opponent's points are left in the dust. Thus, the only logical ballot today is a "pro" one!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.