The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Magic Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 82545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




To wield magic is to break physics. Magic is something such as a spell, or a potion. Types of magic spells are listed below:

Elemental Magic: the ability to shoot balls of fire, electricity, light, or water or such with magic; from the palm of your hand.

Summoning Magic: the ability to bring forth an animal, person, object, or anything else from thin air.

Transformation Magic: the ability to turn yourself, another person, animal, or an object into something else.


1. No trolling, or insults.

2. If you forfeit a round, you concede all arguments. If you have school, college, or some reason for not being able to attend a round, say so in the comments, and I might let it slide. However, forfeiting Round 3 counts as a loss, since I'll probably have an advantage by then.

3. BoP will be shared. I will try to prove why magic isn't able to exist, and Pro will attempt to provide evidence supporting the claim that magic exists.

Good luck, and let's start!


My main focus for this debate is that science is indeed magic. Good luck to you too, man.
Debate Round No. 1


I didn't expect Pro to choose "science is magic", and I honestly don't know how to go about this.

Pro must explain how science is magic, though. My definitions were the common interpretation of magic; impossible feats that break logic. Science IS logic, in a sense. Science couldn't possibly be a unique form of magic, right? All I can do is wait for Pro to explain himself. (I'm probably going to lose, though.)


Well then. Let's start with something a little bit complicated. And by the way man, no hard feelings. GG for the end.
So! In many ways, mind reading is a lot like the human digestive system: no matter what you put into it, ultimately all you're getting out of it is a bunch of crap. Psychics are mostly just using cold readings and leading questions to pick up clues. They see a guy in a red, white and blue cowboy hat and the 'spirits' tell them that he likes country music. The guy is impressed, and hands them money to hear more.
By creatively hedging their guesses and keeping all information vague, a good cold reader can emulate psychic abilities at least well enough to fool chumps, and chump's money spends like anyone else's.
Okay, there I helped you out. Now for the science, and how it's becoming real.
Scientists at Berkeley University figured out that an MRI Machine gives them a pretty clear picture of what the brain is doing. So, if they simply compare what the brain is doing when in different states of mind, you should eventually be able to come up with a machine that can see your thoughts. Magic, right? They already were able to make the machine 'see' what word you were thinking of with an astounding 90% success rate. Another link to magic. Not all magic is successful.
I bet airport security would love to have one of these that pass you through, flashing your thoughts up on the screen for some bored TSA Agent to chuckle at. I've got a feeling that in 20 years there'll be a booming industry in telepathy-blocking skull implants.
Debate Round No. 2


Ah, mind reading technology. Allow me to refute this.

Pro's comparison with mind reading vs the digestive system:

"no matter what you put into it, ultimately all you're getting out of it is a bunch of crap." Later in the argument, though, you mention the MRI Machine, which has a 90% chance of getting whatever you're thinking of correct. I'll delve deeper in my next point. I'll continue with this point for now. Pro has stated "They see a guy in a red, white and blue cowboy hat and the 'spirits' tell them that he likes country music. The guy is impressed, and hands them money to hear more." Would he be impressed, though? He's dressed with red, white, and blue; America's colors. It's only logical to assume he'd like country music.

To sum up this portion, Pro's explaining the trick to Fortune Tellers/Mind Readers. They observe the person, perhaps ask questions as well. Then they'd give their results to the person. (Or at least my understanding of it) In other words, it's impossible to read minds.

MRI Machine:

What exactly IS the MRI Machine? Is it like a helmet? Anyways, back on track. Sure a machine could sense Brain Waves, but how would this be magical? A progression in technology, yes, but I don't think Pro has a definition to go off of. Also, I thought 'no matter what you put mind reading, ultimately all you're getting out of it is a bunch of crap.' I feel as if this is an issue with Pro's case. He could be talking about people reading minds being "crap", but this doesn't mean the same thing as a robot reading minds via sensing brain waves.


"Another link to magic. Not all magic is successful." Why do you mention this? Perhaps technology malfunctions at times, but this isn't magic. I'll get to that in the next point.

"in 20 years there'll be a booming industry in telepathy-blocking skull implants." What do you mean? Why would this even exist? You've said before that mind reading (telepathy) is "a bunch of crap". If it's because of the airport security, then why even implement said security in the first place?

What is "Magic"?:

In Round 1, I said "To wield magic is to break physics. Magic is something such as a spell, or a potion." This is the definition we're going off of. Note that Pro made no remark disagreeing this was the case, nor provided a strict definition. I'll show Pro's opinions which contradict, or have issues, with the definition.

"no matter what you put into it, ultimately all you're getting out of it is a bunch of crap." He concedes that mind reading is impossible here, which is good for my case of "Magic doesn't exist". This also contradicts the next quote.

"an MRI Machine gives them a pretty clear picture of what the brain is doing." But magic is, like I said earlier, "breaking physics". It's because technology has advanced to such a level that it's possible, not any magic spells. Robotics have nothing to do with magic.

Pro's logical fallacy:

Also, my opponent's case seems to be running on a logical fallacy. Magic and Science may share SOME features, like this:

Science: We were able to use technology to make fire, light, and mind reading. Also, technology can fail at times.
Magic: With spells, you can create fire, light, and read minds with telepathy. Also, it may explode in your face.
Therefore: Science is Magic.

I believe this is my opponent's case. However, similarities does not mean "same thing". With "magic", you don't need a robot. To assume mind reading robots "cast" telepathy, it's just programmed with capabilities to sense brain waves. That's it. Us humans aren't "programmed", so we'd have to rely on magic to do our bidding... oh, right. Magic doesn't exist.

To sum up my rebuttal, my opponent presented a robot that can read minds, but this isn't magic. My opponent even conceded the fact that magic isn't a real thing in the beginning of Round 2. Robots aren't magic. Robots are technology.

Extra note: Pro, if my rebuttal was successful and you feel as if your case shattered, don't forfeit round 3. There is a glitch that popped up on this site. If you forfeit a round, it won't progress any further.


Thank you for recognising my PARTIAL mistake. It was not a full mistake, considering electrons are not technology, rather dark matter/magic that creates electricity, indicating the fact that magic is kind of technology.
But I am going to take a different approach on this form of magic. In this case, alchemy.
Alchemy is the ancient, bullcrap version of chemistry. When most people hear the word they immediately think of the alchemists who claimed they could turn lead into gold (a practice called Chrysopoeia, which is a flying snake. Seriously, don't confuse them. Your experiments will get terrifying in a hurry) Of course, the closest old-timey alchemists ever really got was mixing sulfur and gold powder into a metal to turn it yellow. That's right: All it took to create 'gold' from lead was to put some gold in it! Good god, it was staring us in the face the entire time!
It is becoming real since science has made monumental leaps since that era when alchemy was considered the second-most promising method of obtaining gold after 'capturing a leprechaun'. We now know that gold is an element that simply has three fewer protons than lead. If you could somehow change that using SCIENCE...
Oh, actually we're kind of late on this one. Back in 1980, a scientist named Glenn Seaborg accidentally made gold out of bismuth, using the aforementioned proton-plucking method (OK, it was a bit more complicated than that)
Yes, bismuth, the same stuff that's in Pepto Bismol.
Anyway, back to the point. The experiment was only a few thousand atom's worth, and the cost of doing it was way more than the resulting gold would be worth. But still. He made gold. And mankind is really just getting started with the whole 'change elements by farting around with their protons' business. Transmutation of elements is one of the things they're always doing at CERN, home of the Large Hadron Collider. Though they're talking less about turning lead into gold and more about turning radioactive waste into something that won't poison our great great grandchildren.

ANYWAY. What I have covered now and the argument before are all comparisons of magic=science. I must say, I have seriously struggled to find hard evidence of actual magic being real.

In conclusion, magic kinda exists. No, there is no such thing as 'AbraCadabra-ing' things. Nor can you turn a prince into a frog or fly a broomstick. Things like mind reading and alchemy don't contain hocus pocus, but they still contain traces of slight absract doings that can be linked to magic.
But in the meantime, thank you PowerPikachu21, for challenging me and push me to a pretty far limit. And I apologise to the spectators, as I have lowered your chances of going to Hogwarts. Thank you for the support, and I have enjoyed debating with you. It is up to the voters to decide what they believe.
Good Game, bro. And may the best man win.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BlackFlags 11 months ago
Technically magic could be considered unexplained sciences, which is why I encourage PowerPikachu21 to use rhetoric in order to convince the audience that magic is distinct from established sciences, whereas the strategy for ArkhamKnight753 would be to continuously push the point that magic is indistinguishable from established sciences.

One could also argue that magic is a branch of science that is non-existent, like how chemistry and physics are branches of science which are existent. Magic, at least in the sense we think of it, has different laws and properties, therefore would not follow the rules of conventional established sciences, therefore that also could be argued.
Posted by BlackFlags 11 months ago
This is why I do not do debates on semantics. Real life debate topics are always opinion based, rather than fact based. I know people often argue that they cannot be distinguished, but most probably know what I am talking about.
Posted by ArkhamKnight753 11 months ago
Fair debate. I wouldn't know how to argue. I think everyone can understand that magic does not exist. The only thing close to magic is science.
Posted by the_banjo_sender 11 months ago
This is quite tricky, seeing as there is absolutely no evidence for the Pro side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by breakingamber 11 months ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this was a really close debate. Both sides were about equal, but Pro takes the win because he simply made a better argument that his opponent wasn't expecting, and then followed to rebut his opponent soundly. However, neither of them cited sources. Spelling/grammar was about equal (both were good), and conduct was very polite for both pro and con. Otherwise, Pro wins.