Debate Rounds (3)
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!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by breakingamber 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
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.