The Instigator
pheonixduprese
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
J.Kenyon
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Paranormal energy (ghosts) are real.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,820 times Debate No: 10800
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (7)

 

pheonixduprese

Pro

Welcome. I am now going to try to convince you that ghosts, for simpler phrase, are completely and one hundred percent real.

---------------------------------------------------
First, some words defined:

Ghost- 1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.
2.the principle of life; soul; spirit.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Energy- The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Paranormal- of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Supernatural- 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Occult- 1. of or pertaining to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies.
2. beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding; mysterious.
3. secret; disclosed or communicated only to the initiated.
4. hidden from view.
5. (in early science)
a. not apparent on mere inspection but discoverable by experimentation.
b. of a nature not understood, as physical qualities.
c. dealing with such qualities; experimental: occult science.
6. Medicine/Medical. present in amounts too small to be visible: a chemical test to detect occult blood in the stool.
7. the supernatural or supernatural agencies and affairs considered as a whole (usually prec. by the).
8. occult studies or sciences (usually prec. by the).

Curiosity- 1. the desire to learn or know about anything; inquisitiveness.
2. a curious, rare, or novel thing.
3. a strange, curious, or interesting quality.
4. Archaic. carefulness; fastidiousness.

I think that covers the definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Point 1- Humans have believed in the occult since... well, for quite a long time. The ancient Celts, who built Stonehenge, thought that the spirits were most powerful during the solstices and equinoxes.http://en.wikipedia.org...
The ancient Greek Oracle at Delphi believed that she could tap into the supernatural world.http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, humans have believed that they could communicate with other energies a long time. As you might know, false things don't last long- ex. dragons, fairies, the like. You would be surprised that the majority of people believe in ghosts.http://www.cbsnews.com...
If ghosts are not real, why do people still think they are there? (To my opponent- please do not bring up religion on this part of the debate. Thank you.)

2. Many religions advise on not meddling in the occult. My religion (Lutheranistic Christianity) says in the small Catechism not to dabble in supernatural things.
Call me on my lack of sources, but I'm pretty confident most other religions advise against it too. So, why would they say this if there wasn't some sort of truth to it? You must admit that the people who started and wrote these things were very wise men, so they have to have an idea about what they're advising against. This must mean that there is some sort of paranormal energies out there.

3. 22 percent of Americans report that they have had some sort of experience with ghosts or paranormal activity, including me. But unless sixty-six million people imagined their experiences, ghosts must exist.

4. Pop Culture- There are many, practically hundreds of movies based around supernatural occurrences, as well as thousands of songs, books, and web pages. A Google search for ghost turns up 122,000,000 results; a search for supernatural yields thirty-four million, and paranormal brings me thirty-nine million.

Thank you for accepting this debate, I'm sure you'll do as well as I have.
J.Kenyon

Con

==========
INTRODUCTION
==========
PRO has stated "I am now going to try to convince you that ghosts, for simpler phrase (sic), are completely and one hundred percent real."

As instigator, it is his burden to prove with absolute certainty that ghosts exist. Thus, my only task is to negate his arguments. If so much as a phantom (pun intended) of a doubt can be presented against his arguments, he loses the debate.

Nonetheless, because it amuses me, I will present positive evidence that ghosts do not exist.
==========
AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
==========
CONTENTION 1 – "Humans have believed in the occult since... well, for quite a long time."

This is a fallacious argumentium ad antiquitatem, or appeal to tradition. This fallacy assumes that "older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can't learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is."[1]

For quite a long time, indeed, the Doctrine of Humors was the prevailing wisdom in medicine, the Flat Earth in Geology, and Spontaneous Generation in biology. We know now, however that these beliefs are not true. In the same way, most of what has historically been attributed to the supernatural (lightning bolts came from Zeus, Apollo drove a chariot towing the sun across the sky, etc.) have since been given rational, naturalistic explanations.

CONTENTION 2 - Many religions advise against meddling in the occult.
1) Many religions advise against meddling in the occult.
2) Therefore, the occult exists

This is plainly a pro causa non causa fallacy.[2] There is nothing intrinsic about religious beliefs that make them true. They must be logically justified, which PRO has not done. PRO has dumped an enormous unverified claim and implied that it is CON's burden to negate, which is clearly not the case. I could just as well cite a large body of work by naturalist philosophers who have at least as much, if not a better claim to "wisdom."

Additionally, a great many religions make absurd claims. Christianity can be summed up as the belief that a woman made from a rib taken from a man made from mud was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake, which caused a fall from grace. In order to overcome this, we must telepathically express our belief in a dead Jewish carpenter. This dead Jewish carpenter, is in fact God, who must sacrifice himself to atone for our transgressions against a law of his own making!

Finally, a majority of religions are mutually exclusive (that is, if one is true, than others must not be). I must emphasize that it is NOT my burden to disprove ALL religions. PRO must provide evidence for the veracity of the claims made by at least ONE religion or by a group of religions that do not conflict.

CONTENTION 3 - Argument from experience
The underlying idea is that in order for something to be experienced, it must exist. Dreams, however, we experience, yet they are not "real" in the sense that they exist objectively apart from the person experiencing them. Thus, this argument fails ontologically. It also has significant logical and empirical deficiencies. The fact that 66 million Americans believe something does not make it true; this is an argumentium ad populum fallacy. Indeed, it is not only possible, but likely that 66 million Americans (the minority of the population) are, in fact, deluded.

When one wishes to believe something, he is much more likely to twist reality to fit that belief. Mass delusions often take place as a result of what is called "collective wish-fulfillment."[3]

In the mid 1880's, Thomas Edison conducted experiments involving wireless telegraphic communication between tethered balloons. He found that reception was better at night, so he sent up balloons with lights attached. A rumor surfaced that he was experimenting with "electric balloons" so large they could be seen all the way from the west coast. Sightings of the "Edison star" continued to be reported years after his experiments ceased. One of the most intense waves of sightings took place in 1897, which happened to correspond with the astronomical movements of the planet Venus.

The airship hoax of 1909 involved the reported sightings of a revolutionary airplane made by inventor Wallace E. Tillinghast. The plane did not in fact exist. It was never built or even designed. Yet very frequent sightings were reported in Worcester, Ma. Reporters from around the world gathered. Some representatives of foreign governments even came to assess its potential military and commercial application.[3]

PRO has produced zero solid evidence for the existence of ghosts. Most "sightings" involve hazy or doctored photographs in dim light that, seemingly inexplicable noises, and finicky electromagnetic fields.

CONTENTION 4 - Pop culture
1) There are many books, songs, and movies about the paranormal
2) Therefore, the paranormal exists

Yet another pro causa non causa fallacy.[2] This is by far the most absurd argument presented. There are hundreds of superhero movies as well, yet we know that Batman and Superman do not exist. The "Twilight" series of books does not imply the existence of vampires. The Beatles wrote a song called "I am the Walrus." Clearly, this does not mean that singer John Lennon is, in fact, a walrus.

==========
THE NEGATIVE CASE
==========
CONTENTION 1 – Electromagnetism
Electromagnetism is a far better explanation for odd activities than "ghosts."
"a relatively large amount of research has suggested a strong relationship between alleged hauntings and magnetic fields.

"The variance of the local magnetic field was significantly greater in 'haunted' than 'control' areas, and there was a significant relationship between the magnetic variance and the mean number of unusual experiences reported by groups of participants. These results seem consistent with previous research suggesting a relationship between local magnetic field activity and haunt reports."[6]

Some claim that the electromagnetism is in fact caused by the ghosts; however, I address this in the next argument.

CONTENTION 2 – Conservation of energy
PRO has given his own definition of energy, which for the sake of debate, will suffice. If the soul is "energy," supposedly an undiscovered type apart from those listed by PRO, and ghosts consist of a disembodied soul, it follows that ghosts are composed of energy.

Yet, after the death of a person, their source of energy (adenosine triphosphate derived from our food through complex digestive processes) dies with them. [5] The soul, being energy, must have some source. "Ghosts" can supposedly move and make noises, and in some cases have been reported to do work, such as moving, making noises, and slamming doors. [4] All of these activities involve energy, therefore, ghosts do not exist.

As I stated in my previous argument, electromagnetism provides a logical explanation for paranormal activity, however, this too falls under the category of work, and thus it is impossible that ghosts to create it unless they are themselves magnetic, in which case their every movement would still involve physical interaction (work) in the material universe. Without an energy source, this is impossible.

Additionally I declare the right to present new arguments regarding such absurdities as "psychics," near death experiences, telekinesis, etc. should PRO introduce them.

SOURCE(S)
[1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
[2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[3] http://www.theness.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] Wiseman et al. "An investigation in alleged ‘hauntings.'" British Journal of Psycholo
Debate Round No. 1
pheonixduprese

Pro

I thank CON for his so far good argument, even though it presses the bounds of the word "fallacious."

1.)Yes, I agree with your second paragraph: "For quite a long time, indeed, the Doctrine of Humors was the prevailing wisdom in medicine, the Flat Earth in Geology, and Spontaneous Generation in biology. We know now, however that these beliefs are not true. In the same way, most of what has historically been attributed to the supernatural (lightning bolts came from Zeus, Apollo drove a chariot towing the sun across the sky, etc.) have since been given rational, naturalistic explanations." -Con

But these things have been proven false. We all know that the earth is spherical, as we know that lightning comes from negatively charged electrons arcing to positively charged electrons located at the earth's surface. However, though many "paranormal" experiences have been disproved, there are just the same amount of ones that science has NOT been able to prove (or disprove, for that matter.). So, CON, tell me, what happened there?

2.) Against your second paragraph: "Additionally, a great many religions make absurd claims. Christianity can be summed up as the belief that a woman made from a rib taken from a man made from mud was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake, which caused a fall from grace. In order to overcome this, we must telepathically express our belief in a dead Jewish carpenter. This dead Jewish carpenter, is in fact God, who must sacrifice himself to atone for our transgressions against a law of his own making!"- Con

It's called faith and answers, man. Get some. This is not the place to argue this particular point, but, straight from Wikipedia: "A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." http://en.wikipedia.org...

The people who first wrapped their mind around this idea were extremely "wise." I want to see you come up with a verifiable religion, then get back to me on that. Trust me, from the state of Round 1, I honestly don't think you could do it. I know I couldn't.

3.) "The underlying idea is that in order for something to be experienced, it must exist. Dreams, however, we experience, yet they are not "real" in the sense that they exist objectively apart from the person experiencing them. Thus, this argument fails ontologically. It also has significant logical and empirical deficiencies. The fact that 66 million Americans believe something does not make it true; this is an argumentium ad populum fallacy. Indeed, it is not only possible, but likely that 66 million Americans (the minority of the population) are, in fact, deluded." -Con

Dreams happen, as I hope you know, in the subconscious. In sleep. Now dreams have absolutely nothing to do with ghosts, unless you believe the whole 'everyone's a psychic in their sleep' idea. The part of ghosts that people detect with their five senses (sight, touch, audio, smell, taste, just in case you slept through kindergarten :).) is PHYSICAL- of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences. http://dictionary.reference.com...

You obviously didn't check my source. My source stated that 48 percent of Americans said that they believed in ghosts, comparative to 45 percent that do not. Rounding America's population to three-hundred million, that gives approximately 150,000,000 people that believe in ghosts. That means that the United States of America is being ran by "deluded" people. I'm starting to question your own logic.

Sixty-six million people believe that they have had a paranormal experience. Yes, they could be deluded. But not all of them.

"When one wishes to believe something, he is much more likely to twist reality to fit that belief. Mass delusions often take place as a result of what is called 'collective wish-fulfillment.'"- Con

Yes, I agree with you on this point. But I shall share with you a personal experience, which may not be professional, and I'm not using it to prove any points.

My mother, sister, and I were home alone once. My father was out of the house. We were all situated in the living room. Suddenly, we heard a large crash in our hallway. A very large shelf had fallen over five feet from where its original position was on the wall. We do not live near any fault areas (unless you count the New Madrid fault- and even still, it's 300 miles away and no quakes were reported) and no planes were flying over head. No other things could have caused this- so what did? Please, if you have any explanation, share.

I don't believe this is wish-fulfillment. I did not want this shelf to fall, it held many valuables that I miss dearly.

4.)"Yet another pro causa non causa fallacy.[2] This is by far the most absurd argument presented. There are hundreds of superhero movies as well, yet we know that Batman and Superman do not exist. The "Twilight" series of books does not imply the existence of vampires. The Beatles wrote a song called "I am the Walrus." Clearly, this does not mean that singer John Lennon is, in fact, a walrus."- Con

Great to see you've been reading up on Twilight. And of course, it is impossible for John Lennon to be walrus, because walruses do not possess complex enough vocal cords. Batman and Superman are fictional CHARACTERS, created by an author of comic books. The idea of the Occult predates comic books. Obviously.

1.) I question why you included this: ""The variance of the local magnetic field was significantly greater in 'haunted' than 'control' areas, and there was a significant relationship between the magnetic variance and the mean number of unusual experiences reported by groups of participants. These results seem consistent with previous research suggesting a relationship between local magnetic field activity and haunt reports.""[6] -Con

This just helps my case. Of course electromagnetic fields would be higher in "Haunted" areas. Simply check this source to prove my case. (sorry, but I could not post the contents here. I'm running out of characters.) http://en.allexperts.com...

2.) You don't exactly make sense in this paragraph... electromagnetic fields make noises, slam doors, and move? According to you, ghosts=electromagnetic energy. Ok, that makes sense. but then you go on to say that it impossible because it would require work. First, you did not define "work," so I'm going to define it for you- exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Second, I'm fairly confident that electromagnetic fields can not slam doors, unless the door had metal in it and it could be attracted to some other metal. And that's not even electromagnetism. So please, expound on this statement.

Next argument, tell me that you do not believe in ghosts beyond the shadow of doubt. I hope you remember that it is impossible to DISPROVE the fact that ghosts exist.

Thanks!
Pheonix
J.Kenyon

Con

===========
INTRODUCTION
===========

Apparently PRO is oblivious to his own resolution: "I am now going to try to convince you that ghosts, for simpler phrase, are completely and one hundred percent real."

The only "evidence" PRO has produced for this contention is his own "paranormal experience" which I will address later. All negative arguments, PRO has either misunderstood or failed to refute.

==================
AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
==================

CONTENTION 1

PRO states that "[T]hese things have been proven false…However, though many ‘paranormal' experiences have been disproved, there are just the same amount of ones that science has NOT been able to prove (or disprove, for that matter.)."

I'll start by pointing out that PRO has very clearly conceded "science has NOT been able to PROVE (emphasis added)" many paranormal experiences. This violates his 1R contention that he will prove that ghosts are "one hundred percent real."

Second, PRO has apparently abandoned his ad antiquitatem argument for a burden of proof fallacy.[1] Example (taken directly from source):

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."[1]
____________________________________
CONTENTION 2

CON has now introduced a fallacious appeal to faith. "It's called faith and answers, man."

"Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence."[4]

PRO has again tried to shift the burden of proof to the negative. Of course I can't come up with a verifiable religion, otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist! Additionally, PRO has conceded that he is also unable to come up with a verifiable religion, thus failing to meet the ACTUAL burden of proof he placed on himself in 1R.
____________________________________
CONTENTION 3
PRO states that "You obviously didn't check my source. My source stated that 48 percent of Americans said that they believed in ghosts, comparative to 45 percent that do not."

However, he stated explicitly that:

"22 percent of Americans report that they have had some sort of experience with ghosts or paranormal activity, including me. But unless sixty-six million people imagined their experiences, ghosts must exist."

In any case, the number of people who believe something does not negate the ad populum fallacy.

PRO states that "Sixty-six million people believe that they have had a paranormal experience. Yes, they could be deluded. But not all of them." However, he has not given a SHRED of evidence that a SINGLE ONE of these experiences is valid, other than to point out that there have been a lot of them.

The only new argument presented by PRO is his own experience: "We were all situated in the living room. Suddenly, we heard a large crash in our hallway. A very large shelf had fallen over five feet from where its original position was on the wall."

Shocking indeed! A shelf falling! At long last we have evidence of the paranormal! Perhaps this explains where the missing socks in the dryer go or why I always seem to be losing my car keys!

The shelf was probably poorly balanced. Who HASN'T seen something come crashing down? If this was evidence of the paranormal, there is not a man alive who has not observed it! Given the choice between Newton's theory of gravity and PRO's experience, which he did not, in fact, observe, since he was not in the same room at the time it occurred, I'll take gravity.

Additionally, this is yet another example of the infamous, age old "God of the Gaps" fallacy: "Because A is unexplained, it must be caused by X." PRO attempts to use "ghosts" to explain it, however the existence of ghosts is yet unverified! Thus, he begs the question. "Ghosts" is no better an explanation than, say, "quantum fluctuations" or "gremlins" or "a disturbance in the Force!"[3] Thus he has still failed to fulfill the resolution.
____________________________________
CONTENTION 4
Yes, Batman and Superman are fictional characters, so are Casper and the monsters from Scooby-Doo. The non causa pro causa fallacy still stands. Extend my argument.

=================
THE NEGATIVE CASE
=================

CONTENTION 1

Prolonged exposure to electromagnetism causes low blood pressure, slow pulse, chronic excitation of the nervous system, stress, headaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, irritability, anxiety, and inability to concentrate.[2] This, particularly excitation of the nervous system, stress, and anxiety, explain how one might be more likely to think they have had a paranormal experience.

Electromagnetism is usually caused by electronic devices, such as TV's, radios, power lines, and poorly insulated wires, however, the earth itself has its own magnetic field which is stronger in some places and weaker in others. Electromagnetism can also come from the sun.[2]

I address why ghosts cannot produce electromagnetic fields in the following argument, which I will clarify for PRO's convenience.

____________________________________
CONTENTION 2
1) To do work requires energy
2) Any physical interaction with the physical world requires energy
3) Ghosts interact with the physical world
4) Therefore ghosts use energy

However:

1) "Souls" are composed of energy
2) Ghosts are disembodied souls
3) Without the body, the soul can have no source of energy
4) Ghosts use energy
5) Therefore, ghosts do not exist

And:

1) Electromagnetism is a form of energy
2) Ghosts have no source of energy
3) Therefore, ghosts cannot produce electromagnetic fields

===========
CONCLUSION
===========

PRO ends by again trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative, which, as I have pointed out several time is fallacious.[1] The resolution was not "you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist" (although I believe my negative arguments have done this sufficiently). Therefore, I eagerly await the evidence that ghosts are , in PRO's own words, "completely and one hundred percent real."

Until then,
NEGATED

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
[2] http://www.health4youonline.com...
[3] http://skepticwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 2
pheonixduprese

Pro

You basically repeated everything you said in round 1. Also, you have proved irrational and fallaciously stubborn in your arguments. Also, you seem closed to new suggestions, which is not a characteristic to be proud of in anyone. You have not grasped the definition of "ghost" that I have posted in Round 1.

Also, to your argument in contention 3- unless there was an impossibly large body of mass in my hallway that would pull the shelf to this said mass via gravity- cause the shelf to fall- wait for it! FIVE feet away, then it suddenly disappeared, then I could believe this argument. But since that is not only illogical but IMPOSSIBLE, I still hold that something scientifically unexplainable caused my shelf to fall.

People are going to say that I'm a poor debate-er, but I say to them: You are a very bad arguer. You seem to have misquoted me out of context several times, along with a poor acknowledgment of my contentions. In simpler words that you might understand, seeing as there is a high chance that you DID sleep through kindergarten: You suck.
I'm going to hold out on this site (in poor taste) in hope that it is frequented by smarter, better debaters than you. I feel bad for the parts of the internet that you frequent, and I state this as a formal apology to them.

I hope you understand that this is a formal forfeiture of the rest of the debate, as I do not think that I could stomach another round of debating with YOU.

I hope the next person you come upon pwns you into the ground.

Goodbye and good riddance,

Pheonix
J.Kenyon

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has conceded the debate. I hope that he reconsiders his judgment of DDO and wish him luck.

All arguments extended. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
pheonixduprese

Pro

pheonixduprese forfeited this round.
J.Kenyon

Con

Unfortunately, the debate has come to a premature end. I thank my opponent for an interesting topic.

Extend all arguments, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Conduct: Pro constantly tried to shift the burden of proof to Con's side, despite the fact that he instigated the debate and therefore needed to verify his claim. In addition, he also told Con that he sucked and goes off on a rant on DDO. Way to win a debate.

Spelling and grammar: Con's were far more better presented.

Arguments: (shakes head) 1) Pro never refuted Con's evidence of the symptons of exposure to the electromagnetic field that can account for hallucinations/visions of the "paranormal energy (ghosts)
2) Pro committed profound fallacies: burden of proof (("there are just the same amount of ones that science has NOT been able to prove (or disprove, for that matter.). So, CON, tell me, what happened there?")), used arguments from tradition and faith, and wasted an entire round personally attacking Con...

Sources: Note that Pro befuffled his own source...in the debate.

All seven to J.Kenyon...He has already pawned you to the ground in the debate, phoenix.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Both, I think. :D

'Having carefully evaluated that description of the story, one thing comes to mind: It's simply impossible. For you see, being the stud that I am, any such lodger would be too envious of my good looks and charm to even stand being in my presence for a mere moment'

Ah, so now we have motive. Undoubtedly, the lodger is an acquaintance of yours who, while cordial on the outside, is seething away on the inside with thoughts of revenge and jealousy. Perhaps someone who's gal was lured away by your good looks. I see by an exchange between you and Kleptin that you recently acquired such a gal.

I'm sure he could withstand it if he didn't look you directly in the face. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Well you did use the term "he."
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Having carefully evaluated that description of the story, one thing comes to mind: It's simply impossible. For you see, being the stud that I am, any such lodger would be too envious of my good looks and charm to even stand being in my presence for a mere moment.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Curses. I can't truly tell whether your response is sardonic or sarcastic, thus don't know how to respond in tune. Help me out here. :)
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Undoubtedly, you have an unknown lodger in your house who likes to mess with your head. He altered the water pressure, or otherwise influenced the sink in order to make you think it was being compelled by supernatural forces. Having done this to unnerve you, he waited until you placed an ordinary item into a drawer, then knocked you out from behind. He took the item from the drawer and placed it behind the picture. He whispered into your ear as you lay unconscious 'Reopen the drawer. The video is behind the picture in the living room (or whatever)', thus implanting subconscious orders in your mind. You woke up a little while later, having no perception of time having passed. You are a little fuzzy so you don't remember being on the floor after you get up. The rest follows exactly as you describe it.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
It's also possible that your drawer contains a worm hole that leads you to another location by skipping through the dimensions. I think we have a sequel to "Being John Malkovich" ready to go!
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"Obviously, it was Gremlins."

I had gathered it that it was doing of fairies. We should compare notes. :D

"You really placed it inside the drawer and then immediately reopened it? Why? "

Because I was a dumb kid with nothing better to do. Same reason I tried eating playdough.

"My immediate reaction is to doubt your story and to come over and perform a paranormal investigation :D"

Heheh. Fair enough. I hold nothing against you for doubting my story, but if your only conclusion is that the event (assuming it went as I said) would have to be unscientific in nature, all the more reason to support the conclusion I've arrived it.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Obviously, it was Gremlins. You really placed it inside the drawer and then immediately reopened it? Why? My immediate reaction is to doubt your story and to come over and perform a paranormal investigation :D

If I ascribed all the things I thought I'd put in one place and found in another to demons, I'd carry a flask of holy water and wear a rosary at all times.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Actually, the strange thing is that the item managed to go from one place to another instantly rather than the fact that no one ever moved the picture.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
pheonixdupreseJ.KenyonTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: (signs...) See RFD before I put my head in a water-well after reading Pro's callow concession...
Vote Placed by pheonixduprese 6 years ago
pheonixduprese
pheonixdupreseJ.KenyonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
pheonixdupreseJ.KenyonTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
pheonixdupreseJ.KenyonTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
pheonixdupreseJ.KenyonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
pheonixdupreseJ.KenyonTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
pheonixdupreseJ.KenyonTied
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:07