The Instigator
BrycePackwood
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RR-5L8S
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Space is an intangable reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 101285
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

BrycePackwood

Pro

the nature of Reality, universal Consciousness and the subjective Self found in monistic systems of India, particularly in many s$3;tras of Vedanta and Kashmir "6;aivism. These monistic systems do not consider time (or space) as primary but treat it as a derivative of consciousness. A brief summary of monism"s process of manifestation of all objective existence, including time, greatly adds to the present special volume. Monism complements western science. Indian schools of monism complement. Bp
RR-5L8S

Con

Seeing as Pro has not specified parameters for this debate, I will do so to the best of my ability. I dictate the following:

Structure and Rules:
[1] There will be five rounds.
- Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY.
- Within round 2 both sides present opening arguments.
- Round 3 presents the opportunity for rebuttals.
- Round 4 is the time allotted for final arguments.
- Round 5 is specified for brief rebuttals and closing statements.
[2] Equitable Conduct.
[3] No profanity.
[4] Empirical Evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
BrycePackwood

Pro

fvck you!!!!!!!!
RR-5L8S

Con

Before I begin, I just want to point out that your previous response is your loss.

Definition:
[1] Intangible Reality - [Noun] Something that cannot be defined on empirical, sensory, or temporal terms.

[1] Cosmic background temperature: minus 455 F
[2] Hard Vacuum

Both of these are observable and quantifiable traits of space that we can apply data and sensory terms to. Pro must disprove this in order to win.

Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 2
BrycePackwood

Pro

You cannot possibly touch space space is an empty matter. You cannot possibly feel it you can only feel the great vastness ofspace and such a thing will never be achieved Einstein realized that many of the effects of non-uniform motion are similar to the effects of gravity. (Perhaps you have experienced the sensation of feeling heavier in a lift that is accelerating upwards.)Space is associated with our interaction with surroundings through instinct senses, which allow us to view our world.
RR-5L8S

Con

Ah, but space itself can be defined in terms of either three dimensions or four given space - time. The very fact that we can traverse distances within the confines of these limits is one way we can observe and experience space. Space, in essence, is the spatial fabric on which we exist. We can calculate and observe gravity interacting with it. Space is the absence of matter, and that is a vacuum. You certainly can feel a vacuum.
Debate Round No. 3
BrycePackwood

Pro

You are correct about the vacum THEORY. Imagine this you have a bubble inside that bubble is nothing. Then you add planets and stars and trillions of partials in that bubble. What do you feel? Now imagine the bubble is never ending. See you can't its impossible. Now stick your hand in the bubble what do you feel?You feel the gravitational pull and vacume of the things in space. You can't feel distance or emptiness which is what space is. Space is made of absolutely nothing, that's why its space
RR-5L8S

Con

The emptiness of space is the exact cause of a hard vacuum to be generated. The absence of matter creates a negative pressure zone [AKA. vacuum]. You also completely ignored my point that space is the very reason we can move in three dimensions. Both of these are tangible experiences. You also ignored the fact that we can observe gravity interacting with space, as well as radiation. To this extent you have conceded that humans can experience space, and it is not an intangible reality.
Debate Round No. 4
BrycePackwood

Pro

I have conceded that you can feel every thing that's within space not space its self. As you said SPACE is the CAUSE OF a hard vacuum to be generated. The tangitable expirences aren't space being touched its the reaction of spaces emptiness that causes them. And gravity doesn't interact with space it interacts with the vacuum caused by emptiness to this extent i've conceded humans cant expirence space but what's with in it. So therefore its an intangible reality. Thanks for debating , B.Packwood
RR-5L8S

Con

To the contrary, we have calculated and observed black holes [Dense gravitational bodies] interacting with the spacial plane. Since you have conceded that the emptiness of space is the cause of a hard vacuum, we in turn are experiencing space through the vacuum. We interact with space in so many simplistic ways, its impossible not to experience. Its a matter of perception. We traverse space through its dimensions. Its simply a matter of perceiving the subtleties.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BrycePackwood 9 months ago
BrycePackwood
I want intending on outer space it was more words space in general.
Posted by RR-5L8S 9 months ago
RR-5L8S
Likewise here. Theories how ever do have some factual basis. However, they are not proven. My main point is that space exists in 3 - 4 dimensions, dimensions we can experience and move around in. Without space, we would cease to exist, and therefore we do experience it in the form OF existing.
Posted by BrycePackwood 9 months ago
BrycePackwood
This is my first debate. When I created it i clicked the wrong amount of character's. When I wrote the argument I meant to say you were correct about the vacuum theory itself. A theory is basically a guess its not considered true until evidence declares it scientific law such as gravity. I was trying to show you with an example of a bubble that you don't feel space you feel what's in it and auto correct spells intangible wrong. If I had more characters id have more evidence to offer.
Posted by RR-5L8S 10 months ago
RR-5L8S
As to @Sonofcharl, that is the exact reason I moved to use empirical data, to show space is not an 'intangible reality' as pro would suggest. There are so many terms that we can observe and quantify space with.
Posted by RR-5L8S 10 months ago
RR-5L8S
Sources as promised.

[1] https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Posted by Sonofcharl 10 months ago
Sonofcharl
Intangible reality is a notion of pure logic.

So empirical evidence, therefore cannot be applied.
Posted by RR-5L8S 10 months ago
RR-5L8S
Or why he has incorrectly spelled 'intangible.'
Posted by RR-5L8S 10 months ago
RR-5L8S
I also ask Pro as to why he has severely shortened the length of each segment [500 characters I believe].
No votes have been placed for this debate.