The Instigator
DollopheadedMerlin
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Nothing has its own color

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 7 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 35539
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

DollopheadedMerlin

Pro

Nothing has its own color. You may say that a shirt is white or a book is red bu it's not. The colors that we have names for are not the colors of objects they're the colors of hues. If you look at a so called 'white' piece of paper in the dark does it appear white? No. It appears black or gray. Same as a black rock. When you hold it to the sun does it appear black? No. It appears a lighter gray. The things that we have named with colors are only named that way because of the way the sun reflects off of the surface of objects. The colors we see are only the colors that the sun provides for us. If we had a different star in our sky, made at a different size or composed of different chemicals, we would not see each color as it is. Colors are nothing but a temporary description.
xXCryptoXx

Con


Since my opponent did not post any definitions, I will take it upon myself to do so.


Nothing – Nonexistent


Color - “the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.”



Now then, my opponent’s arguments are completely, and utterly, logically incoherent.


My opponent is Pro for nothing has color.


However, “nothing” can’t have color because “nothing” is the lack of existence of something. Color is an attribute only an existing thing can have, but because “nothing” is nonexistence in itself, it can’t have color.


My opponent seems to go completely off topic, because he starts to argue that objects don’t have one specific color because of the way light reflects off of it.


I argue that “nothing” does not have its own color because color cannot be attributed to something that does not exist.



You’re move, Pro.


:D


Debate Round No. 1
DollopheadedMerlin

Pro

When I say nothing has its own color I am merely saying that, due to the fact that the sun is the source of how we see things, you can not say that an object is purple and have it stand in all conditions. If you look at a red apple at noon when the sun is directly above the apple it will portray a different shade then when it is dawn or dusk. Nothing has its own color in the sense that when you define something by its color that description cannot permanently stand.

Color - "the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue."

This is the same definition that you portrayed. It clearly states that color is seen due to the light reflected by the object. Therefor, if that light is to change it's angle or its composition it would change the color of the object. The phrase, "Nothing has its own color," can stand true.

And since you like definitions:

Own- "to maintain one's position or condition"

An object does not always maintain the same color in appearance. I believe that you were using the wrong definitions to your advantage as I never did say that you cannot classify objects on their color I merely said that the color that the sun provides for us in the day is not the only one that is capable of being seen. A white piece of paper does not appear white when there is no sunlight.

I rest my case.
xXCryptoXx

Con

My opponent once again, goes waaaaay off topic from the debate we are having.

He keeps on talking about how the sun reflects off objects but the matter we are discussing does not have any relation to this.

My opponent must show that "nothing", as in, nonexistence in itself, has color.

I argue that because "nothing" is literally nonexistent it cannot be attributed with color, because color can only be attributed to an object.

Also, the sun isn't the reason we see colors the way we see them, God is the reason we see things the way we see them. However, this is irrelevant to the debate so no need to respond to it.

My opponent seems to completely ignore m=the definition of 'nothing" that has been set up for this debate; because my opponent has no objected to the definition it is the definition that will be used. This means my opponent is indeed presenting totally irrelevant arguments and that my own arguments have not been contended to.

Nothing = Nonexistence

Nonexistence = Can't have adjectives, or can't be described because it does not exist.

Color = Description/Adjective

My opponent must show that nonexistence in itself can be described with color, because after all he is Pro for "nothing" has color. However, "nothing" does not have color because it is not an object, it is simply nothing.

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
DollopheadedMerlin

Pro

My opponent has taken my argument in a different perspective than it was intended. in this definition of the word nothing, which I should point out in the number ONE definition on dictionary.com,

Nothing- no thing; not anything

suggests that I was saying that no thing on it's own has its own color.

Now let me fill in theses two definitions as well:

Color - "the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue."

Own- "to maintain one's position or condition"

No thing can maintain the same measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light at all times; because the reflected light may change therefor changing the hue, or color.

I RE-REST MY CASE
xXCryptoXx

Con

My opponent never contended to my definition of "nothing" until the final round.

All my opponent did was repeat his logically incoherent argument which I already rebutted twice.

My opponent dropped all my arguments, whereas I properly responded to his.

My opponent unjustly attempts to win this debate by changing the definition that had already been established, and doesn't even respond to the arguments I presented through the entire debate.

Good debate Pro.






























umad?
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
DollopheadedMerlinxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: a
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
DollopheadedMerlinxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter JorgeLucas.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
DollopheadedMerlinxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully showed that "nothing" cannot have it's own color. Pro could not make a coherent argument in response to this claim and ended up repeating the same thing over and over while dropping Con's points completely. Clear arguments win for Con. However, Con blindsided Pro with definition semantics so Pro gets Conduct.
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 3 years ago
JorgeLucas
DollopheadedMerlinxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: BOMB'D
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
DollopheadedMerlinxXCryptoXxTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro deserves conduct points, because Con was trolling, and proud of it.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
DollopheadedMerlinxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro debated off the definition and then tried to add a definition in the last round. Ah, I do love semantics :3
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
DollopheadedMerlinxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol. Sorry Pro, but if you're the second to propose a definition, you must explain why it is more qualified than your opponent's. Clever strategy Con. I'm gonna give it to you. You barely won it, but you did. S/G for Con's "You're move...". It's your*. :P