The Instigator
Forever23
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
BlazingRodent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Pro Is A Flying Pink Jaguar That Hands Out Mailboxes To Elves

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 2 votes the winner is...
Forever23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 84983
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

Forever23

Pro

R1- Acceptance
R2- Arguments
R3- Refutations
R4- Summaries

No definitions
No Semantics
No Kritik


I look forward to a great debate!
BlazingRodent

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Forever23

Pro

Thank you Blazing for accepting this debateLet me begin with some contentions


This debate will be framed to only the jaguar animal.

Contention #1- Anything Is Possible.

Anything is possible. Things that may seem impossible or things that seem like they will never happen may happen. Another planet may exist that has tons of magical creatures.

Or, you may hit the up coming Power Ball lottery. And who doesnt want 1 billion dollars? Nothing ca be 100% impossible. And I mean nothing.There is a slight chance that that one thing, no matter how insane or unlikely it seems, will happen.I am not saying that there is a very large chance, but that possibility is their.

[1] As Miley Cyrus states, "If you believe in yourself anything is possible."

As Afrojack states, "For me, it's a great thing to tell people anything is possible. When I was 15, people told me 'You're not going to be a DJ.'"So, clearly, if everything is possible, it is possible for me to be a flying pink jaguar that hands out mailbozes to elves.

I confirm that that is true and since I have seen myself in the mirror, I know that it is true.I am sure that many people will not believe me when I say this so in order to be more plausible, I will say a little something about my life.

Everyday, I wake up early in the morning. I brush my bleached pink fur and then, go for the daily fly. I really spend the rest of the day relaxing, seeing the planet, basically exploring. I also really enjoy going to this site infested wth filthy human beings titled debate.org. I love to debate controversial issues that concern the human infested planet Earth. Now, I am proving that I am what I am.My life in the summer tends to be fairly easy but in the spring and fall, come the rains. It maked my daily fly quite complicated.The hardest season for me is winter. Meaning, Christmas time. My opponent never specified when I hand out the mail boxes so I will. I only do that in the winter- Christmas time. I collect letters from Santa and put them in special mailboxes. I then give them to the elves who then give them to Santa.I really have to stay in non human infested areas. Otherwise, I will be kept in captivity.


Contention #2- How I look like

I look something like this:





Only I have wings:




I hand out these:



TO them:


Contention #3-

Con has absolutely no sources to prove that I am not a flying pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves.

However, in the statenements above, there was proof that I am the jaguar animal. The jaguar car is out of framework.

However, I have shown pictures that relate to me, since if the reader is a hunter I can never post real pics.

I have also written about my life.

Vote pro










[1] http://www.brainyquote.com...
[2] http://www.solarnavigator.net...
[3] http://cache4.asset-cache.net...;
[4] http://ecx.images-amazon.com...;
[5] http://www.midlothian-isd.net...;
BlazingRodent

Con

There is a logical limit to what is possible on this universe.

There have never been any scientific signs of jaguars being pink, having wings, and elves existing, and there is evidence supporting it.

First of all, I must point our that Pro indeed has the BoP for this, and I will rebut their case on Round 3.

It is my duty to argue that you aren't one of them, and even if they do exist, that does not mean by default that you are one.

There have been no studies of jaguars being able to type on a computer very well, no studies of jaguars having wings, and no studies of elves existing.

This entire argument, is basically that, without scientific evidence, something can't be considered possible. And though this argument might not seem like it contains substance, the proof does not rely on me to prove what you aren't, but pointing out that there are obviously no sources that back this up shows that it can't be considered possible.
Debate Round No. 2
Forever23

Pro

My opponent's first contention.

There have never been any scientific signs of jaguars being pink, having wings, and elves existing, and there is evidence supporting it.

Luckily, not. Otherwise, we would all be kept in captivity by now. But that is beyond the point.


There have been no scientific studies of these. And to continue his point, on these:

There have been no studies of jaguars being able to type on a computer very well, no studies of jaguars having wings, and no studies of elves existing.


However, in before Columbus, there have been no studies to show that the Earth was a sphere. But was it? Oh YES it was.

Before, people have never travelled to Antarctica. They never knew about polar bears.... But did those bears exist. Oh yes they did.

So why not with me?


Just because the science was not there, that does not mean that jaguars can not be pink. Or that they can not have wings. Or that elves do not exist.

Perhaps they are lurking (which they are)!

Just because my opponent never heard of these or never surfed enough CNN, it does not mean that the things listed are not real.


Think about the book Flatland. The 2-d shape did not know about 3-d and the 3-d shape did not know about the tesseract who was laughing in the corner :)


He also mentions that if I am a jaguar, I cant type. However, I have managed to obtain a computer.


And I type using my claws!!!


Finally, my opponent points out that even if these do exist, there is no proof that I am one of them.


Is there proof that I am not one of them?

No.

In fact, I have come across a mirror before and have seen my fur and wings. I have also experienced handing out mailboxes to elves.


Clearly. I am a pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves.


Vote pro.
BlazingRodent

Con

Rebuttals-

Contention #1- Anything Is Possible.

"Anything is possible. Things that may seem impossible or things that seem like they will never happen may happen. Another planet may exist that has tons of magical creatures.

Or, you may hit the up coming Power Ball lottery. And who doesnt want 1 billion dollars? Nothing ca be 100% impossible. And I mean nothing.There is a slight chance that that one thing, no matter how insane or unlikely it seems, will happen.I am not saying that there is a very large chance, but that possibility is their.

[1] As Miley Cyrus states, "If you believe in yourself anything is possible."

As Afrojack states, "For me, it's a great thing to tell people anything is possible. When I was 15, people told me 'You're not going to be a DJ.'"So, clearly, if everything is possible, it is possible for me to be a flying pink jaguar that hands out mailbozes to elves."

This argument is incredibly weak for multiple reasons. The first reason for it being substantially frail is that it is made up of a bunch of groundless assertions. My opponent states the following "Anything is possible. Things that may seem impossible or things that seem like they will never happen may happen. Another planet may exist and have tons of magical creatures.", which is really just a claim without reasoning or evidence to back it up. Nothing here shows that anything is possible, and the only possibility the argument could work is if it were word of God, which it clearly is not.

The next paragraph is just Pro making examples that apply to things that are only unlikely, but not something that is believed to be impossible, which makes her point moot.

The second problem with the arguments that I have quoted is that she uses popular people like Miley Cyrus and Afrojack as sources to back up her argument. Those are just people that agree with you, and quite frankly, they possibly exaggerated their quotes to make people feel good about themselves. Those people do not have the words of God, and they did not do experiments to test if anything was possible, so why should we trust them? They are making claims exactly like you are. And AfroJack's example is only one case, and that means becoming a DJ is possible when it seems like it isn't, not that everything that seems impossible is possible. I am not seeing the connection here.

As for Contention Two of Pro's argument, it is just used from assertions and random images she got from websites. There are two problems with this contention. 1) Pro could still be lying considering that she didn't give any direct proof. Even if we assume that they exist, how do we know this is her, and not someone else? 2) If you really are a flying pink jaguar who hands out mailboxes to elves, why did you need to take the images separately? Why couldn't you just show 1 image of you handing out mailboxes to elves? Why does the mailbox have a white background? If you really needed to show separate images with questionable features, then how should we trust that these "sources" are reliable?

Contention Three of Pro's argument assumes that I have the BoP to show that she isn't a flying pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves, but since she instigated this debate, the BoP is on her to show that otherwise.

And now to defend my case from Pro's rebuttals

"Luckily, not. Otherwise, we would all be kept in captivity by now. But that is beyond the point.

There have been no scientific studies of these. And to continue his point, on these:"

So Pro just makes another bare assertion and concedes that there is no evidence to support this, which destroys her entire case because a) she has the BoP and b) she needs substantial evidence to support this, and is denying the opportunity to do so.

"However, in before Columbus, there have been no studies to show that the Earth was a sphere. But was it? Oh YES it was.

Before, people have never travelled to Antarctica. They never knew about polar bears.... But did those bears exist. Oh yes they did."

If one would have argued before the Earth was confirmed to be a sphere that the Earth was indeed a sphere, and they had no evidence, nobody could take their word for it. You haven't given any substantial evidence for you being a pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves, and that's why I don't take your word for it.

Just because nobody knew polar bears existed doesn't mean people thought they weren't able to possibly exist. I mean, nothing seems impossible about a white bear that lived in the cold. That makes no sense.

Again, your examples don't show that absolutely *anything* is possible, just that certain animals, structures of Earth, etc. are possible, and it certainly doesn't connect to your case very well.

"So why not with me?"

Because unlike people who have proven that the Earth is a sphere and that Polar Bears exist, you don't give reliable evidence for your claims.

"Just because the science was not there, that does not mean that jaguars can not be pink. Or that they can not have wings. Or that elves do not exist."

You have the BoP. You have to prove you are a pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves, which makes this only a defensive argument, not an offensive argument.

"Just because my opponent never heard of these or never surfed enough CNN, it does not mean that the things listed are not real."

Yet another defensive argument.

"Think about the book Flatland. The 2-d shape did not know about 3-d and the 3-d shape did not know about the tesseract who was laughing in the corner :)"

The logic of a book does not apply to the logic of real life, or at least, my opponent doesn't prove this.

"He also mentions that if I am a jaguar, I cant type. However, I have managed to obtain a computer."

This argument can be simplified to "Con says I cannot type, well I indeed *can* type." The "Yes I can" argument won't work unless you have evidence to back that up.

"Finally, my opponent points out that even if these do exist, there is no proof that I am one of them.

Is there proof that I am not one of them?"

You have the BoP, Pro. I have stated this for the third time. I should not have to explain this again.

"In fact, I have come across a mirror before and have seen my fur and wings. I have also experienced handing out mailboxes to elves."

And are you going to show us an image of that? Once again, how can I trust that you aren't lying?

Overall, my opponent made a bunch of unbacked assertions, used unreliable/questionable sources, and attempted to place the BoP on me despite the fact that she never made that a rule and she instigated the debate.

Clearly, Pro has not proven that she is a pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 7 months ago
Omniscient_Debater
BlazingRodent, you are an abysmal debater.
Posted by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
Not really.
Posted by Trollord 10 months ago
Trollord
This is the best troll debadte that ever took place in DDO history.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Firstly, I didn't vote on sources and even if forevers sources were unreliable you provided no sources to combat this which resulted in a stale mate. Please thoroughly read my RFD. This is all explained.
Posted by BlazingRodent 1 year ago
BlazingRodent
Insufficiently? But I pointed out the flaws and that the sources were unreliable.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
The contradiction meant nothing. It was a mistake. The problem was that you left Forever's arguments insufficiently refuted and that gave me a situation almost comparable to St. Anslem's ontological argument. It presented me possibility. Which, like with St. Anslem, was enough for me to affirm.
Posted by BlazingRodent 1 year ago
BlazingRodent
I really think these votes make no sense. Using unreliable sources doesn't count as evidence. I lost because I contradicted myself and said that I had the BoP, and later I didn't, not because I didn't refute it well or didn't refute the sources.
Posted by BlazingRodent 1 year ago
BlazingRodent
Famous, I didn't need evidence if I wouldn't have screwed up. Neither of us proved anything. I said that I was to prove that she wasn't one. Neither of us proved anything.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
If I don't remember to post a vote tomorrow someone remind me to do so the following day.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Chrysalism// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: This debate started out as something under the funny section of DDO and then Con added an underlying message about logical impossibilities. I've been entertained greatly so thank you for this debate!

[*Reason for removal*] This isn't really an RFD, just an expression of what the voter liked in the debate. The voter has to explain why they're voting for a given side (i.e. why they found them persuasive) and compare specific arguments made by both sides to render a sufficient RFD.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
Forever23BlazingRodentTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: http://pastebin.com/raw/AX84NtyY
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Forever23BlazingRodentTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Arqjbc8_qw6JxXMRT6YDXqiudaT1B7GCr4k_eFqCYHM/edit