The Instigator
iamadragon
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

Resolved: This picture is awesome.

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 14 votes the winner is...
pcmbrown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,801 times Debate No: 8564
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (14)

 

iamadragon

Pro

Clarifications: The picture referred to in the above resolution is the image which you may have the pleasure of viewing by visiting the link http://apod.nasa.gov....

Awesome: inspiring awe or admiration or wonder [1].

By taking the PRO side of this debate, I will argue that the picture referred to in the above resolution is the image which you have the pleasure of viewing by visiting the link hhttp://apod.nasa.gov... is, indeed, awesome.

The image is an artist's stylized depiction of a view of Saturn from its moon, Enceladus [2]. The image illustrates ice volcanoes, a phenomenon that does not occur on Earth, but rather on obscure moons on the Solar System's outer planets. It also places us much nearer to Saturn than anyone alive has ever been.

Is this not awe-inspiring? The concept of an ice volcano is most likely unknown by the vast majority of the population. The idea of being so close to Saturn, on a moon that has phenomena so unknown to most humans, should inspire awe in us as it is something so unknown, yet so vast. The ideas encapsulated in the painting–the unknown and the strange that occur beyond our atmosphere–epitomize man's fascination with space. This fascination with space is a result of our lack of knowledge of space. When we are still trying to grasp so many aspects of something so vast, we are awestruck by that thing. Therefore, this picture inspires awe, meaning it is awe-inspiring, meaning it is awesome.

[1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
[2]http://apod.nasa.gov...
pcmbrown

Con

I will argue that the picture referred to in the above resolution is the image which you have the pleasure of viewing by visiting the link hhttp://apod.nasa.gov...... is, indeed, awesome."

Upon clicking the link, I was not given the pleasure of viewing an "awesome picture", but instead, an Alert, notifying me that "hhttp is not a registered protocol." The only pictorial element of the Alert was a symbol much akin to this one http://etavern.net.... This yellow triangle failed entirely to generate any sort of awe or wonderment in my mind. My opponent's arguments apply to an artist's depiction of Saturn, not the picture in question.
Debate Round No. 1
iamadragon

Pro

God, what a bitch of a mistake by me. I guess I can kindly ask that you ignore my simple typo, but if you don't want to, couldn't I just say that you can get to the real picture via the link in the resolution?

What happens now?
pcmbrown

Con

Alright, typo aside.

awe: an overwhelming feeling of wonder or admiration; [1]
awe: fear [1]
These are the two definitions which opponent's source provides.

overwhelming: incapable of being resisted [1]
wonder: curiosity [1]
admiration: a feeling of delighted approval and liking [1]
fear: be afraid or scared of [1]

1. The picture certainly does not inspire fear. In fact, it looks much like a computer desktop. A picture such as this: http://images.whatsthatbug.com... is far more able to inspire fear.

2. The picture does not inspire overwhelming wonder. I was not so consumed by wonderment as to further research these ice volcanoes, nor even to read the caption in its entirety. Obviously, it was possible to resist any wonderment which I experienced.

3. The picture does not inspire overwhelming admiration. An overwhelming sense of liking would, no doubt, result in an inability to tear oneself from the image. However, I managed to do so within seconds. Therefore, I resisted any admiration felt.

[1] wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Debate Round No. 2
iamadragon

Pro

"These are the two definitions which opponent's source provides."

Irrelevant. I provided the definition "inspiring awe or admiration or wonder."

"1. The picture certainly does not inspire fear. In fact, it looks much like a computer desktop. A picture such as this: http://images.whatsthatbug.com...... is far more able to inspire fear."

By the power invested in me as a member of Debate.org, I declare this argument null and void, as the premises upon which it is based are incorrect.

"2. The picture does not inspire overwhelming wonder. I was not so consumed by wonderment as to further research these ice volcanoes, nor even to read the caption in its entirety. Obviously, it was possible to resist any wonderment which I experienced."

Obviously, there are exceptions, but the majority of the population would feel awe at this image. I have already explained why–curiosity is part of human nature, and there is nothing about which to be more curious than the vast unknown, space.

The majority of the population's fascination with space is evident in many ways. One is the overwhelming popularity of entertainment that deals with elements of space, such as Star Trek. Another is the amount of support the space program has gotten, especially discounting the criticisms of it that are based on cost issues rather than interest issues. According to a 2002 poll, more than half of the population believed that the space program should continue, and those who did not support its continuation were concerned with the amount of money it would take, not whether or not it was interesting [1].

"3. The picture does not inspire overwhelming admiration. An overwhelming sense of liking would, no doubt, result in an inability to tear oneself from the image. However, I managed to do so within seconds. Therefore, I resisted any admiration felt."

Humans are never actually unable to stop looking at an image. Often, they want to look at it more, but understand that they have other things to do.

I have shown that the majority of the population has an interest in space, and therefore, would find the unfamiliar phenomena illustrated in the image awe-inspiring, and therefore, awesome. My opponent is simply an outlier in his lack of interest in the picture.

[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
pcmbrown

Con

"'These are the two definitions which opponent's source provides.'

Irrelevant. I provided the definition 'inspiring awe or admiration or wonder.'"

I was merely showing that my definitions are legitimate.

"By the power invested in me as a member of Debate.org, I declare this argument null and void, as the premises upon which it is based are incorrect."

My opponent provides no relevant refutation. Therefore, the argument stands.

"Obviously, there are exceptions, but the majority of the population would feel awe at this image. I have already explained why–curiosity is part of human nature, and there is nothing about which to be more curious than the vast unknown, space."

My opponent is obviously ignoring my definition of "awe". Of course, most of the population might feel some admiration, or wonder at this picture. However, this feeling would not be "overwhelming". My opponent, by calling the picture "awesome", is hugely overstating the wonderment and amazement that the picture generate.

"I have shown that the majority of the population has an interest in space, and therefore, would find the unfamiliar phenomena illustrated in the image awe-inspiring, and therefore, awesome. My opponent is simply an outlier in his lack of interest in the picture."

Once again, while the picture may cause wonderment and amazement to the majority of the population, it does not generate these to an overwhelming extent. Hence, it is not "awesome".
Debate Round No. 3
iamadragon

Pro

"I was merely showing that my definitions are legitimate."

Sorry, but they aren't. Whether or not they came from the same source I provided is completely irrelevant. The definition of "awe" in this debate is the one I have provided, to which you agreed by accepting the debate.

If one could provide an alternate definition solely because the two come from the same source, one could completely change the meaning of a resolution.

"My opponent provides no relevant refutation. Therefore, the argument stands."

I did. The initial definition stands, and yours are illegitimate.

"My opponent is obviously ignoring my definition of "awe". Of course, most of the population might feel some admiration, or wonder at this picture. However, this feeling would not be "overwhelming". My opponent, by calling the picture "awesome", is hugely overstating the wonderment and amazement that the picture generate."

"Once again, while the picture may cause wonderment and amazement to the majority of the population, it does not generate these to an overwhelming extent. Hence, it is not "awesome"."

Yes, I am ignoring it. The magnitude of the awe, which you have chosen to be "overwhelming," is irrelevant, as it is not part of the resolution nor is it part of the definition of awe.

Second, the magnitude of the awe would be completely subjective and would vary greatly from person to person–however, the existence of some form of awe in the majority of people is undeniable.

Ladies and gentlemen of Debate.org, PRO is the way to go. My opponent's argument is based completely off his own definitions, which are illegitimate, and therefore, his arguments are illegitimate as well. I have clearly shown why the image in the resolution is indeed awesome.
pcmbrown

Con

Definitions: My opponent defined only "awesome". Therefore, I can further define any other words which arise in this debate. Our definitions do not conflict. "Awesome" means "inspiring awe". As my opponent fails to define awe, I define it as "awe: an overwhelming feeling of wonder or admiration; awe: fear". I am not providing an "alternate definition".

P1: Yes, the initial definition stands. However, mine do as well, as they do not conflict with the original definition.

P2: a. The definition of awe does indeed include the word "overwhelming": "awe: an overwhelming feeling of wonder or admiration". Thus, the magnitude is specified. b. The magnitude of awe is not subjective. It is inherently overwhelming, as per my non-conflicting definition.

My definitions do not provide an alternative to my opponent's. They merely clarify them. As awesome means "inspiring awe", I was well within my rights to define "awe". As my opponent does not account for any of my legitimate definitions with his arguments, they all are irrelevant. The picture in question does not inspire awe, and is therefore, not awesome.

Thanks for the debate, thanks for reading, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
camel spider >< they make me cringe
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
B/A: CON, CON. I didn't really like the picture at first, and CON convinced me that the picture does not inspire fear.
C: CON. Pro's use of PROfanity in R2.
S/G TIED. No noticeable errors.
CA: CON. He effectively shows that his definition can be used with PRO's, and then shows why the picture is not 'awesome'.
S: TIED. Both debaters used good sources.

pcm, what was that bug?
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
There's a difference between saying something and backing it up (arguing) and just saying something.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
huh?
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
I said you should have argued that. Not that you should have plainly said it.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
Me: "to state that the appreciation is overwhelming is ridiculous" iam: "You should have argued that in the debate." Me: "i did..." iam: "Nah." Me: "‘Once again, while the picture may cause wonderment and amazement to the majority of the population, it does not generate these to an overwhelming extent. Hence, it is not 'awesome'.'" iam: "Uh, ok. So you said something. Great." Congrats on the fail dude.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Scyrone: So you're another one of those people who think, for some reason, that you have to prove something as fact to win a debate?

Anyone can say what you're saying. "Con basically owned you." "you also didn't really reply to his contentions." "you fail." "Weak Sauce."

Wow, you're cool. I don't really care if you give a reason for voting the way you did, but you still haven't. Stop taking this website so seriously–to hate, even in the context of debate.org, someone for basically dicking around is pretty pathetic.

pcmbrown: Uh, ok. So you said something. Great.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
"Once again, while the picture may cause wonderment and amazement to the majority of the population, it does not generate these to an overwhelming extent. Hence, it is not 'awesome'."
Posted by Scyrone 7 years ago
Scyrone
I agreed with CON before the debate because there was no picture to see.
Con had not only reliable sources but more. Describe a picture as awesome is an opinion. Your opinion. You cannot prove opinion, because then if you could then it is fact. You had a few typos. And Con basically owned you. Not only did not you define all your terms, but you also didn't really reply to his contentions. You more so spouted "illocigal" and "I have destroyed your contention". And that pissed me off. I hate people who automatically they claim to have beaten the opponent down with arguments and then claim that they should be winning. I also think that I am not vote-bombing, but the people who have voted for you are. iamdragon, you fail. Weak Sauce.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Nah.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by EmyG 7 years ago
EmyG
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by happypanda 7 years ago
happypanda
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 Scyrone 7 years ago
Scyrone
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 Larsness 7 years ago
Larsness
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 Conor 7 years ago
Conor
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 harlequin 7 years ago
harlequin
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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 sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
iamadragonpcmbrownTied
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