The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
uniferous
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Some Days Are Longer Than Years

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,157 times Debate No: 88688
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (3)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*1st round is for acceptance, and if you want to introduce yourself.
*There are no round rules other than the above rule.


Resolution
Some days are longer than years.

Pro
Has the Burden of Proof and 3 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that some days are longer than years.

Con
Has also 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that some days are longer than years.


*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before accepting, as long as both Pro and Con agree.

Otherwise...

*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.


Definitions

some - an unspecified amount or number of.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

day - a single rotation of a planet in relation to its primary.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

longer - last a greater amount of time.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

year - the time taken by a planet to make one revolution around the sun.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
uniferous

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

I affirm that some days are longer than years, because on the planet Venus, the 2nd planet from our sun, "one day...lasts as long as 243 Earth days...Venus makes a complete orbit around the sun (a year in Venusian time) in 225 Earth days or slightly less than 2 Venusian day-night cycles."
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...

So, it is true that some days, Venusian days, are longer than years.
One day on Venus is about 243 Earth days, and one year on Venus is about 225 earth days.

One must affirm the resolution, because of Venusian days and years.
uniferous

Con

**Burdens**

The burdens solely lie on Pro to prove that some days are longer than years.

**Observation of the Rules**

Let's look at what Pro says in the first round:

"1st round is for acceptance, and if you want to introduce yourself."

Now directly underneath this (this was the very first sentence). Pro says:

"There are no round rules other than the above rule."

Now let's look at what Pro says underneath the text that says that there are no rules other than the above rule:

"*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before accepting, as long as both Pro and Con agree. Otherwise... *Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate."

This rule is invalid due to the fact that Pro specifically says that there are no rules other than the one above him saying that. This means that definitions CAN be changed in the debate because the rule saying that they can't is an invalid rule.

**Proposal**

I propose that the definition of the word 'day' is changed to make it more suitable, applicable and fair in regards to the debate resolution because as Pro's argument clearly shows, the resolution is a truism without the necessary definition change that I will be proposing.

The definition of day will now be:

"each of the twenty-four-hour periods, reckoned from one midnight to the next, into which a week, month, or year is divided, and corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis." [1]

Ergo, the length of a day on any planet other than Earth is irrelevant.

My opponent's argument is therefore irrelevant.

[1] https://www.google.co.uk...;
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for accepting the debate.

The opposite of thanks Con for ignoring the DEBATE rules.

I affirm that some days are longer than years, because days are longer than years on Venus.
Con does not contest this point AT ALL, and I argue that NASA has a really good idea/explanation of the length of days and years on Venus.

Con's case is instead an attack on the definitions, contrary to the DEBATE rules.

1. What's the difference between a DEBATE and a ROUND?

A debate is a formal discussion on a particular topic, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

A round is a division of a debate.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

The 1st round says that by accepting this debate, one agrees to the definitions, and this is a DEBATE rule, a rule for the formal discussion in total.

The 1st round of this debate says that there are no ROUND rules, that is to say, there are no rules for any one division of this debate.

2. In English, nouns can act as modifiers.

For example:
-It is an OFFICE chair. (a chair for an office)
-May I have a SOUP spoon? (a spoon for soup)
-Ring the DOOR bell. (the bell of the door)
-It is a PICNIC table. (a table for a picnic)
-He rides a MOUNTAIN bike. (a bike for mountains)
http://www.grammar-quizzes.com...

So, in the 1st round of this debate, the noun being used a s a modifier is ROUND, and it is modifying the noun rule.
"There are no round rules" means there are no rules for rounds; Con ignores this modifier.

Notice the 1st round doesn't say there are no DEBATE rules (rules for the debate).

3. Fallacy of Composition.

Con claims that, since there are no ROUND rules, the DEBATE rules can be ignored.
This is a fallacy of composition.

Fallacies of composition assume that something that is true of the part is therefore true of the whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

For example:
-Drinking alcohol is legal. Driving is legal. Therefore drinking alcohol while driving is legal.
-Seats can't fly by themselves. Windows can't fly by themselves. Therefore airplanes can't fly by themselves.
-Human poop should go in the toilet. Therefore humans should go in the toilet.
-There are no ROUND rules. Therefore there are no DEBATE rules.

All of these commit the fallacy, and Con is guilty as well, by claiming that something that is true of the parts (rounds) is also true of the whole (debate).

4. Con's bogus "observation" of the rules.

Con dishonestly quotes me:
"Pro...says that there are no rules other than the above rule"

My response:
Con, did you conveniently leave out a particular modifier?
Doesn't my 1st round actually read there no ROUND rules other than the above rule?
That was lame, Con, even for you.

Con, the 1st round is very clear that the definitions are agreed to by accepting the debate.

So, Con marinates in his dishonesty:
"This rule is invalid due to the fact that Pro specifically says that there are no rules other than the one above him saying that. "

My response:
That pesky modifier, Con...why must you neglect it so?
Again, Con omits the modifier ROUND from my actual statement that there are no ROUND rules, compromising Con's integrity and neglecting the difference between a ROUND rule and a DEBATE rule.

5. Con's bogus proposal.

Con puffs his neglectful chest:
"I propose that the definition of the word 'day' is changed to...each of the twenty-four-hour periods, reckoned from one midnight to the next, into which a week, month, or year is divided, and corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis."

My response:
I propose that Con agreed to the definitions from round 1, and then attempted to change them to fit his needs.

Con, by accepting this debate, you agreed to the definitions despite your ignorance of nouns as modifiers in English, your bogus observation and subsequent ignorance of the rules, and your desperate attempt to change unchangeable definitions.

Con has very little integrity to purposefully misquote me and to violate clearly written rules from round 1, so readers should understand that Con has no arguments at all...he has refused to address the length of days and years on Venus.

Come on Con, is that all you got?
uniferous

Con

Terminology and Modifiers

The term "round rules" is very ambiguous and is left undefined. Since a debate (in this instance) = 4 rounds it is arguable that debate rules and round rules are the same thing. A round rule (as I have interpreted since Pro left it undefined) is a rule regarding the debate. I should NOT be penalized for this interpretation due to the fact that the term was extremely vague and was not explained in enough detail in the first round. Pro even reinforces this by defining "round" as a division of a debate. Meaning that if a rule concerns the rounds it ultimately concerns the debate.

I agree that nouns can be used as modifiers however in this instance the modifier "round" can easily be interpreted as very similar, if not the same, as the modifier "debate".


Composition


My opponent's argument regarding composition is also irrelevant. I never made that assumption. This is my interpretation of Pro's initial round:

Premise: There is a rule at the beginnining of the round stating that the first round is acceptance.

Premise: Directly underneath this rule it states that there are no more round rules other than the rule above.

Premise: The term round rule is left undefined.

Conclusion: The term round rule is left to Con's interpretation due to the fact that it's left undefined.

Conclusion: I interpret round rules as being comparable to debate rules due to their similarity, especially in regards to debate. I do not view them as the same however I do interpret that in this instance whether they are similar or the same is irrelevant since I believe that rules regarding definitions come under the heading of round rules and debate rules.

Note: I should not be penalized due to the fact that I am not able to read Pro's mind and find out what interpretation of round rules he was using. Furthermore, due to the nature of this debate (being that it is a trap debate that is a truism in Pro's favor - provided that we accept his definitions), you ought to penalize Pro on this - not me.

There was no "bogus" interpretation and as I have already stated there was no need to include the modifier as the modifiers debate and round are similar and can be used interchangably in this instance.


Misquote


I have not "misquote[d]" my opponent.

x = y (ie. they are synonyms)

I have said that my opponent said x when in reality he said y. There is no difference between x and y because they are synonyms and ultimately mean exactly the same thing.


Summary


My opponent is being ridiculous and is expecting me to know things that are impossible for me to know. How on Earth am I supposed to know my opponent's interpretation of the words "round rules"? This is ridiculous. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

Con:
"I interpret round rules as being comparable to debate rules due to their similarity, especially in regards to debate. I do not view them as the same however..."

My response:
Great.
Con agrees that round rules and debate rules are not the same.
This means that the statement "there are no round rules," in Con's estimation, IS NOT THE SAME AS the statement "there are no debate rules."

This would also mean, in Con's view, that there are properties exclusive to debates in total, and there are properties exclusive to rounds.

Con should admit this outright and concede.
But Con's not that type of debater, no, no, no.

Con's the type of debater that would...tell you that you're munching on chocolate while he's crapping in your mouth...pee in your face and tell you it's raining...slap you on your head because he claims there's a bug there, but you know there isn't and he's just bein' a douche.

Con is...douche dishonest.
Hey, you can modify adjectives with nouns too in English.

I feel like Con is being so dishonest in an attempt to sell a fallacious and lie-ridden case to readers, that his dishonesty transcends that of your everyday dishonesty...he's reaching douche altitudes here:

Con, in round 3:
"it is arguable that debate rules and round rules are the same thing"

Con, later in round 3:
"I interpret round rules as being comparable to debate rules...I do not view them as the same."

My response:
I'll choose the more recent view of Con's as the concession, and I'll let voters decipher this egregious contradiction.

But I'm not done.

If we're to agree with Con, in the beginning of round three, that "debate rules and round rules are the same thing," then we must also agree that:
1. Since each round has a 10,000 character limit, therefore the debate has only a 10,000 character limit.
2. Since there are 4 rounds, therefore there must be 4 debates.
3. Since the rules state "1st round is for acceptance," therefore the debate is for acceptance.

Con, either way you spin this, you lose.

If debate rules are the same as round rules, then 1st round acceptance means total debate acceptance, and by accepting the total debate, you accept the definitions.

If debate rules are different than round rules, then you concede that "there are no other round rules" does not equate to "there are no other debate rules," and the definitions must be accepted.

Con then baffles me:
"I have said that my opponent said x when in reality he said y. There is no difference between x and y"

My response:
Listen readers; it's not chocolate!
uniferous

Con

I actually find it rather humorous that my opponent accuses me of twisting words and interpretations when he is the only one that is doing it. And the extent to which he does it is also something that I find to be blatant and obvious.

Debate and Round Rules

My opponent ignores the key elements of what I said and chooses to ignore them. YES - they are not the same. NO - the fact that they are not the same does NOT mean that my position is invalidated. I'll quote what I said in the last round that Pro chooses to completely ignore:

" I do not view them as the same however I do interpret that in this instance whether they are similar or the same is irrelevant since I believe that rules regarding definitions come under the heading of round rules and debate rules [due to their similarity]."

Contradiction

It is crucial to take note of the fact that I said that it is arguable that they are the same thing. That means that it CAN be argued that they are the same thing. That isn't the same thing as saying that I am arguing that they are the same thing. This means that there isn't a conradiction when I later said that I DO NOT view them as the same - just similar.

Context

I said that I view them as similar - not the same. My opponent's examples are not using the correct term noun. In the term: "round rules". The word "round" is describing the word rules, therefore making it an adjective. Pro uses the following examples:

1. Since each round has a 10,000 character limit, therefore the debate has only a 10,000 character limit.

In this example round is used as a noun. The noun 'round', and the adjective 'round' are different. The example is invalid.

2. Since there are 4 rounds, therefore there must be 4 debates.

Again, this is the noun, not the adjective.

3. Since the rules state "1st round is for acceptance," therefore the debate is for acceptance.

Nope. Again, you are using the noun, not the adjective. None of these examples are true or are even used in the correct context for this debate.

Algebraic Formula

Pro concedes this as he does not respond to the argument.

This is an obvious vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Have you read this debate at all?
That was the point.
Some days, rotations around an axis, are longer than years, revolutions around the sun.
Venus satisfies that, so you have to vote Pro in this case, no?
Posted by dr_sepheroth 1 year ago
dr_sepheroth
Well yes Venus has a shorter year than a day on earth but that is because it orbits around the sun much closer.

The Same can be said for Mercury.

If you are referring to planets other then the earth, then yes a day can be longer then a year relative to the planets orbit around its star.

However this does not work for Earth as a planet.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Ok, you're not reading what I'm writing you.
The definition of year, in this debate is "the time taken by a planet to make one revolution around the sun."

Do you realize that for Venus, this takes more time than a single rotation of Venus in relation to its primary?
Posted by dr_sepheroth 1 year ago
dr_sepheroth
because the orbit of the earth around the sun takes longer than the earth's rotation.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Sorry, I meant to respond to a different debate.

The definition of day in this debate was "a single rotation of a planet in relation to its primary."
and the definition for year was " the time taken by a planet to make one revolution around the sun."

Venus takes 243 earth days to rotate and 225 earth days to revolve around the sun.

Why don't you agree that some days are longer than years?
Posted by dr_sepheroth 1 year ago
dr_sepheroth
That is our perception of sunrise from our stationary position on a rotIf you slow the rotation of the earth down you will have a longer day, but to have a day as long as a year you must also slow the earth's orbit around the sun down or you will slow the earth's rotation to zero and we will have no, or less gravity.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Did you read the debate at all?
The sun rises in the west and sets in the east on the planet Venus.
Posted by dr_sepheroth 1 year ago
dr_sepheroth
I do not think so, the earth's rotation and orbit, and the suns orbit would all need to slow down -365 times the speed of light. this is the same principal as slowing down time by moving close to the speed of light. This is just reversed, and it is not possible.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
There will come a day when the dishonest on this site shall not thwart my efforts to win...the day is near!
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
You're good whiteflame. I agree, if there were no crap munching, and it was just because of rules arguing, then it would be a little different. Ok, thanks for checking on it anyway.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by missbailey8 1 year ago
missbailey8
MagicAintRealuniferousTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: "Con's the type of debater that would...tell you that you're munching on chocolate while he's crapping in your mouth...pee in your face and tell you it's raining...slap you on your head because he claims there's a bug there, but you know there isn't and he's just bein' a douche." In R4, this is what Pro said to Con. He basically called Con a douche for questioning his logic. Pro also completely derailed the debate by arguing about the rules instead. This easily could've been resolved in the comments. Anyway, while Con was able to be calm in the duration of the debate, Pro turned to name-calling to prove a point. Calling your opponent a douche isn't going to solve anything. For this, Con wins 1 point in conduct.
Vote Placed by Overhead 1 year ago
Overhead
MagicAintRealuniferousTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: PRO calling CON a douche in R4 and saying he's the type to"tell you that you're munching on chocolate while he's crapping in your mouth" makes this a win for CON who made no equivalent comments from CON. Arguments: CON's argument relies from R2 onward on redefining the definitions given by PRO in R1. This is despite the fact the definitions are clearly given in R1, CON accepts them in R1 and the rules in R1 clearly state that the definitions can only be changed in the comments before accepting. Although CON tries to argue these were not legitimate rules due to the sentence specifying the round rules, I believe this is semantics and the intention of PRO was clear. (elaborated on in RFD) S&G: No significant issues on either side that draw my attention. Sources: Pro uses more, but largely for basic definitions of word which does not add significantly to the debate - especially as we never reach the stage where the definitions are even agreed upon. Please see comments!
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
MagicAintRealuniferousTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: http://pastebin.com/raw/mMeAQZtD