Pinkie Pie Could Exist If She Wanted To
Debate Rounds (4)
And yes, I mean this Pinkie Pie (the one from My Little Pony, Friendship is Magic, in case the image does not show).
I'm usually quite of semantics, but lezbe honest.
First round is for acceptance, good luck :)
And, here comes the logic.
First and most importantly,
In One of the Infinite Universes, Pinkie Pie Exists.
"According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy uncertain "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality. Scientists don’t yet have a perfect explanation for how it works, but that hasn’t changed the fact that the phenomenon appears to be real."
Since there are alternate universes, Pinkie Pie exists an unobserved one of these.
Establishing that Pinkie Pie can Exist in Alternate Universes Besides the One She Lives In
By evidence of the episodes, we know that Pinkie Pie can move freely to exist in alternate universes.
"She is depicted as being aware of the cinematic elements of the show in the ending of Over a Barrel, where she holds back the iris-in in order to have the last line of the episode; she repeats this process in Magic Duel, before the episode can end with her mouth still missing -"
On top of this, we see in the Friendship is Magic move, Equestria Girls, that horse Pinkie is fully aware of what is going on in a human universe, and vice versa.
And if cannon isn't enough for you, Pinkie Pie bluntly "travels" to exist in the 90's Cartoon Network universe in the fanmade MLP episode, Double Rainboom.
All of this directly points to Pinkie's ability to travel to alternate universes.
If Pinkie Pie can exist in any universe of her choosing (seeing no proof that there are limits on which universes she can and cannot exist in), she can exist in the universe we live in.
Pinkie Pie could exist if she wanted to.
WARNING: My arguments are not, I repeat, are NOT suitable for anybody and shouldn’t be read at all. Please read no further than the full stop at the end of this sentence.
Thank you to MassiveDump for allowing me the chance to debate MLP and perhaps be a part of another 1,000,000 view debate! When I initially saw this debate and decided to accept it, I wondered what approach my opponent might take. I began researching Pinkie Pie (who is, of course, my favourite pony) and her supposed instances of breaking the 4th wall. Of course, I didn’t expect quantum physics to be introduced, but I suppose that only makes it more interesting.
So, let us begin.
My opponent’s entire argument is based on us accepting two premises.
1) That if we accept that ‘unobserved objects exist in ‘superposition’ states; that is to say they exist in two positions simultaneously, we should accept that there exist infinite universes and that within at least one of these universes, Pinkie Pie, the animated anthropomorphic pony of the show My Little Pony exists.
2) That Pinkie Pie can indeed break the 4th wall and that that indicates she has the ability to traverse, Doctor Who-style, the aforementioned infinite universes at will, including being able to travel into our own reality.
I will begin my counter arguments by focusing on the first premise...
The Many-Worlds Interpretation and Schrödinger's pony
My opponent’s argument that there exist infinite universes is a misrepresentation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics and clutches heavily at straws. This interpretation of quantum mechanics does not suggest that there exist ‘infinite’ universes, only that all possible universes exist. That is, that every possible reality that could exist, does exist. This, while easily mistaken to mean the same thing, is in fact quite different. If something is impossible (that is, completely and utterly defies the laws of every possible reality) than it doesn’t not exist in any universe or any reality. To suggest otherwise means that in one reality, human beings have custard for blood, that in another reality, Hitler is God and in another, my opponent is being anally raped by an elephant with a flaming barbed penis right now. And now. And now. And now.
If, my opponent indeed wants to argue that every reality imaginable exists and not just every physically possible reality, he must concede that in some other reality he is actually drinking a bucket of sperm samples collected from the residents of a retirement village rather than doing this debate.
The difference between breaking the 4th wall and being ‘cartoony.’
The laws of reality do not necessarily apply to cartoons or any fictional world but it is actually rare that a character breaks the proverbial 4th wall. The best example of a character who routinely breaks the 4th wall is Deadpool. Deadpool often speaks directly to the reader, interacts and observes things like thought bubbles and page borders and various other shenanigans. Warner Brothers characters often broke the wall; Elmer Fudd would often turn and speak directly to the viewer (“shh, I’m hunting wabbits”). The 4th wall, as far as I understand, is when a character interacts with the audience as with my above examples. Pinky Pie does not interact with the audience. Instead, she is merely interacting with the cartoon universe she exists in on a greater level than anyone else does. In the ‘Hey, that’s what I said’ example, she is responding to Twilight Sparkles voice-over. Other instances of her looking directly into ‘the camera’ have been explained by one of the people who work on the show (http://knowyourmeme.com...)
As for your two other examples, I do not understand as I have not seen the Equestria Girls movie nor the fanmade episode (which I would consider non-canon and thus not relevant to the debate anyway.) Regardless, from what I believe your Equestria Girls example suggests, Pinkie Pie is able to again, interact with objects within her own universe. Regardless, the ability to break the 4th wall does not correlate with the ability to traverse all possible universes.
Where is she?
Let’s, for a moment, ignore the fact I’ve disproven both of my opponents arguments and humour him. If Pinkie Pie could choose to exist in this world, anyone familiar with the character would know that she would indeed choose to. I assert that if my opponents argument were correct, that Pinkie Pie WOULD exist in our world and that to inarguably prove his assertion he must show substantial evidence that this is the case.
We have another round, so I will leave it at that. The long and short of it is that my opponents arguments are both extremely flawed. No credible science claims that infinite universes exist and he is grossly misrepresenting the many-world interpretation of quantum physics. Not only that, but he has not sufficiently shown that Pinkie Pie breaks the 4th wall, only that she is able to interact with her own universe on a level not dissimilar to many other cartoon characters.
Over to you, Dumpy.
Interpretation of Schrödinger's Pony
First of all, congratulations to my opponent on such a wonderful play on words for this heading. Second, shame on him for accusing the Equestrian universe of being utterly impossible.
Basically, my opponent says that impossible universes can't exist. But what makes a universe impossible? While not likely at all to be created based on the outcomes of what happens here and now, there can still be a universe based on an event long, long ago that could easily have created a universe full of mythical creatures, say if a few squabbles between species altered the very path of natural evolution.
That said, these alterations in the path of evolution could have created universes where humans have custard for blood, Hitler is God, or I could be getting anally raped by an elephant with an unfortunate medical condition. To concede that in some universe I'm drinking sperm? I see no reason why not.
In short, my opponent, while using some pretty strong words, is only limiting the creation of universes to what outcomes could be starting here and now. But in reality, it is just as likely that the same single-celled organisms eventually evolved into intelligent ponies.
Therefore, Equestria is an alternate universe.
The Fourth Wall
My opponent claims to have explained the difference between breaking the fourth wall and just being cartoony by saying that Pinkie Pie is just "looking at a pony behind the camera", but there's one thing he cannot elaborate on:
Where do we draw the line?
My opponent has already admitted that Elmer Fudd and Deadpool break the fourth wall. But how do we know that the yellow boxes that Deadpool sees aren't part of his universe (or I guess my opponent prefers "world")? The same for Elmer Fudd. Who's to say that Elmer isn't telling someone behind the camera that he's "huntin' wabbits"?
The answer seems to be, because my opponent said so.
Furthermore, my opponent wants to include the Equestria Girls phenomenon as just being "part of the world", when the human world Twilight goes to is specifically called an "alternate universe." So how does that remain within the boundary of "being cartoony," though when Deadpoop does it, it's considered "breaking the fourth wall"?
Again, because my opponent said so, and nothing more.
Call it what you may, but the term is "breaking the fourth wall". And not only does Pinkie Pie do that, she specifically refers to it as "being in an alternate universe" as well.
But like my opponent said, breaking the fourth wall does not correlate with entering alternate universes, but in Equestria Girls, Pinkie indeed did prove that she has a connection to alternate universes and, even if she didn't, Equestria Girls proved that Equestria has mirrors that can take people to alternate universes.
And if my opponent dismisses it as "it being part of the same universe", consider that for a Pinkie Pie in some universe, it is in fact the ability to travel to different universes. Because, as I said, if you go back far enough, nearly any universe can be created.
And then this.
My opponent and I can both agree that this is a weak contention, but for formaility's sake, I'll argue it.
My opponent claims that if Pinkie could, Pinkie would. Needless to say, he provided no evidence that there is a 100% chance that Pinkie would want to live here. "Anyone farmiliar with the character" would know that she has no knowledge of our world, and therefore can't "want" to live here.
Anyone farmiliar with the show would know that only Lyra is aware of our universe, which further asserts that a pony would have the ability to exist here.
Extend that there no limits on which universes Pinkie can to to, therefore she can go here.
In all reality, my opponent didn't really touch the resolution all that much. A pony universe could easily exist as a result of a different path in evolution, the only difference between the ability to go to new universes and "interacting with one's own" are the perameters my opponent has so generously invented, and other than that, Con has little to say.
Pinkie Pie Could Exist If She Wanted To.
Lol, 50 seconds to write something.
Been too busy to do this, so I forfeit this round. Perhaps I can make something up in the last round.
Sorry to Dumpy for letting him down.
I'll give my opponent this round to submit his last arguments.
This forfeiture shouldn't influence conduct in my direction, nor to his.
Fvck, where did two days go?
I forfeit full conduct to my opponent. I would have only really expanded on what I've already said anyway and being as this is the final round, it would be unfair for me to introduce new evidence and argument to which he couldn't respond.
Sorry again Dumpy,
I can guarantee you that if you are having a cruisy time and work and think you have time to do a debate, that's exactly when shjt goes down down down.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years 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:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: For the sake of fairness, I'm going to call con's actions a concession of the argument. The ginger ave the cat permission to post an argument in the final round, to more or less catch up after having to skip a round; the cat then skipped a second one. While the suggestion was to have it impact conduct, such would drop every point made by pro two rounds previous, and thus in effect concede the argument anyway.
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.