The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 76283
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




I hereby submit to this august body that precisely ten trillion years ago (in phase IV, third dimensional time) that interdemensional reptiloids penetrated the veil of our delusional, effete potato-munching and highfalutin world and began the process of trolling the multiverse known as POPTART. When the rat that sat on the pink cat felt the anal blood fart rise through the MEST he mistakenly thought of as Elizabeth Taylor then this gave rise to our Gnostic Mother the Supreme Sophia who as such emanating forth as a mistake because the original postulate got all mixed up and instead of being a Black Russian sort of drink it became a White Russian drink and the Thetans she produced like a abortion & didn't much like the taste of such a strong tasting liquor so it got inside there in a kind of fat wombat sort of way and it all jams up you see and they were frozen in their pants as they peed themselves and that became Incident One and that became the main trigger for a mad little bowler called Xemu or Xenu and he thought he was God so he made up all these little turtles and he started stacking all these turtles up to the limits to see how far he could get but then there was this wild chariot that WHOOSHED by and knocked all the turtles back down so he had to start alllllll over but every time he did this the chariot would go WHOOSH and that became the DP5-Implant which today is more commonly thought of as the Sisyphus Conundrum and hence forth and so forth and so on this became a sort of Dialectic if you will and you may have heard of a fancy little puppet called Hegel and well this was definitely an Abolsolute Idealism because you got this mad dash to stack up all these turtles to the limits and we call it the noumenal world acting on the material universe of phenomena and really that's just a Form because in order to get a thing like table you're going to need a Form for tableness. Universe unfolds it through series of internet tubes.


I accept. PRO ha the entirety of the burden of proof to demonstrate that the lizard people are taking over.

Thus far, he provides no evidence at all for this masive claim. His anecdote refers to an event from ten trillion years ago, but the universe itself is only 14 billion years, and the solar system 4.5 billion, so this isn't even possible []. Simply acknowledging that one fact, you can disregard everything he has written - and note, of course, that he cites not the tiniest bit of evidence.

Truly, everything he has written thus far - and, because this debate is limited to 2,000 characters, I can't take it line by line, though I don't have to - reads like a science fiction novel. It's a cute story, though there's zero reason at all to think that any of it is accurate.

In order to win this debate, he needs to do several things:

(a) prove that these lizard people actually exist
(b) prove that they are taking over

If he fails to do both of those things with ampl evidence, you vote CON by default.
Debate Round No. 1


I submt tht the Erth may indeed be only as old or even the very univrs as old as my opnt claims it to be in fact I agree But I would add that that is only terrstrial time or the time for which this univrs we reside in is timed by
As we know thanks to the great work of our qantm phys there is indeed a great and expansive multivrs beyond our univrs and it is from those actions that our universe came into existence through the big bang

Univers are dying out and being born in that multivrs potentially infinitely

Time applies to our universe and our erth and you cn time it by the amnt my opnt has calculated it as beyond time as it exists in that context there is also the contxt of time as it exists in the multivrs and all those other univers indeed as time exists in parrellel univers even
Why there are as we now know thnks to the great work of quantum phys who r currntly working on this in String M Theory ther r 11 dimension and thruout all 11 dim one of the factors that is common to all is that time exist in them along with factors such as gravty
know there are 11 dim because the math bears it for when you get up to the 12 or 13 dim then the structure of mathmtics becms unstble and breaks back into 11 dim

could we possbly calculate how much time has passd altogthr beyond our tiny little univrs
We just know the number would be huge in proprtion to how long our univrs has existed within that

Furthrmr I submit that qantum mecancs allow the utmst ridiculous and impossible things to occr
One moment you could be in bed and next you'd be floating on Mars! You have to wait until the death of the universe for that remote possibility to occur thanks to the law of averages but it will evntlly

An evil demon tries to deceive our minds/science
There are creatures in other dim though they go unseen and cnt particlrly interact w

real is imagined


PRO concedes on the age of the univrse, but claims that he was referrng to a multiverse: however, he hasn't proven, nor has science proven, that this definitely the case, nor is the 10 trillion figure evidence. Demand evidence, or drop his entire anecdote.

He then g oes on an incoherent rant about there being 11 dimensions, but again provides zero evidence. Even if this were true, he's dancing around the resolution. He dosn't provide any evidence that there are in fact lizard people, and recall that this is his BOP.

He say that we can't calculate the amount of time between universes, and this is true if there were multiple universes, but (a) he doesn't prove that there are and (b) he, not I, made an assertion of 10 trillion years. He's admitting that he can't actually prove this number to the be the case, which is conceding that his entire R1 was nonsense.

He says quantum mechanics could allow ridiculous things to occur - again, no evidence for this whatsoever, though even if it were true, there's no evidence for actual lizard people.

The claim on an evil demon is merely an assertion, and his citation is nothing more than a sparknotes page on Descartes's Mediations. But this is a misrepresentation: the "evil demon" was a *thought experiment* in Descartes's work. This isn't evidence of creatures who go unseen - only the last sentence of PRO's round is even relevant, and for that he provides no evidence at all.

Note also that PRO is only source-spamming. Two of his sources are on irrelvant material on quantum mechanics that doesn't even bear on the resolution, and the third is a piece written by Descartes that he used to "prove" the existence of an evil demon. He hasn't even linked his caims to his sources, which is a flagrant misuse of his sources.

Once more, he needs to prove the existence of lizard people, *and* that they are taking over. He does nothing of the sort thus far.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent forfeits the argument for he is:
Too skeptical
Not skeptical enough
Unable to adhere to the obvious spirit of the debate
Unable to understand the nuances
A horrible cook
Unable to grasp Robert Anton Wilson's supreme truth [of 'maybe logic']
Fails to see what happens if you apply Descartes' thought experiments to modern physics
Is vexed
Is incapable of intuition
Incapable of either inductive or deductive reasoning
Has resorted to false invalidation of my arguments
Is unable to pull the wool over his own eyes
Fails understand theoretical quantum physics and there is no way to explain it to him here
Fails to understand the lizard people work for the evil demon out to deceive us
Fails to see the "objective" universe is illogical/a form of madness
Fails to understand:
That all evidence is faulty/tampered with
That the "objective" universe doesn't exist
That only my subjective consciousness and the experience of it has validity
That a thing perceived in the mind thereby exists
That the evil demon hypothesis with his lizard people minions is the best explanation for why we can know nothing except that our imagination functions better than empirical science
Skepticism is ultimate reality and quantum physics, the evil demon, and his evil lizard people working to deceive us constitute the best argument for the supremacy of skepticism





PRO doesn't even engage a single thing I've said. Note that he never once denied that he had the burden of proof or that my criticisms are valid, but he has now resorted to ad hominem attacks. For this, please consider awarding me conduct.

I'm going to respond to a few of his remarks in my limited character space, though obviously I'm going to ignore the personal attacks.

The "spirit of the debate" is that he must be able to prove that lizard people are taking over. He didn't deny his BOP. As with any debate, if he doesn't prove this, you vote PRO.

I don't understand where Anton Wilson comes in: he never made this argument.

H didn't apply Descartes's thought experiment to modern physics: he didn't even present it as a thought experiment. He used it to try to prove a positive claim that invisible people exist. There are no "nuances" to his arguments - he's just making bold, unsubstantiated assertions. This has nothing to do with intuition. This debate is about proof, and he has none. This isn't a false validation, but demanding evidence.

I don't misunderstand quantum physics - he's just asserting things without backing the resolution, so obviously I'm going to point out (a) that he's asserting things are true which are unproved and (b) that his remarks don't prove the resolution.

He provides zero evidence that the objective universe doesn't exist - and an appeal to "First Principles" is enough to invalidate this.

He falsely claims that something perceived in the mind exists - but existence is a matter of *objective* reality.

He's, again, only making assertions about this "lizard people" hypothesis being plausible or the "best explanation." He doesn't even show how this clashes with other viable theories. He is literally substituting the unknown for the unknown, which *cannot* carry the standard of proof necessary to win.

PRO does nothing more than make baseles assertions and personal attacks. He doesn't even touch his BOP. And, once more, he provides irrelevant links.
Debate Round No. 3


My contender doesn't get it.
He's also dishonest/doesn't know what he's talking about.
Has an ideological extremism which is fanatic and based on objective/materialist-reductionist pseudo-science.
He is also taking refuge within the collective herd and the safety of polls being "proof" that anything is true or anyone is right ["if enough people agree with me then I'm right."]
He's playing the victim card.

You must vote PRO.


I find it disgusting that every single word out of PRO is a personal attack. He wasn't once denied his massive BOP - and because he has failed to uphold that burden, and because he cannot post new arguments or provide evidence in the last round, you must vote CON - but he hasn't taken any steps toward substantiating his claims. Rather, he is deflecting case for his paltry defense of this baseless conspiracy theory onto me.

He says that I don't know what I'm talking about. The irony on this is strong - I did nothing more than point out that he provided zero evidence for a single thing he said, and that he was using a thought experiment from Descartes as though it were a factual narrative. When he says that X or Y is the "best explanation" or that objective reality doesn't exist, he needs to provide more than a bare assertion. Yet, he hasn't, and claiming otherwise is to be, ironically, dishonest.

He then accuses me of ideological extremism based on reductive materialism. I don't know how that could be relevant to the resolution with respect to lizard people, nor have I advocated such a position, nor must I advocate such a position to win this debate - though he's condemning it, nevertheless, as "pseudo science" based on nothing more, of course, than an assertion.

This isn't playing the victim card, and it's disgusting for PRO to assert as much. This isn't a matter of agreement as the basis of objective correctness, because it isn't. If something is objectively true, it's true regardless of whether people beleive it. This is a debate on a debating website, and PRO has made a positive assertion about lizard people taking over. He basically concedes here that he has not the slightest bit of proof, and he's actually spent more time attacking me than he has defending his arguments.

Therefore, you vote CON, because we don't let people make grand assertions without the tiniest shred of evidence.
Debate Round No. 4


My contender is too young to have fully developed the cognitive facility to detect and process such things as satire/parody when he reads them. Most people never develop the faculty at all.

He lacks creativity and imagination.

He is probably suffering from an autistic-spectrum disorder therefore doesn't understand jokes.

He has missed the point in everything I've written here entirely.

He is like all those people from decades back who used to watch Gilligan's Island on TV and then called the Coast Guard in order to demand that they do something to rescue those poor people [because they didn't know entertainment from reality].

If he doesn't know an SNL skit from the end of his own nose [in any so-called intellectual debate] then you must vote PRO.

Don't believe in his BS.
Don't believe in my BS.
Don't believe in your own BS.

That is why you must vote PRO.

I concede the argument entirely from start to finish and declare my contender to be the winner therefore you must vote PRO.

Only a TIE can be right for this debate.

Final point, only one minute long [contender is too lazy to watch it of course]:

Contender is such a clown/constipated in his thinking/full of himself that he is offended by comedic insults.

He is a tool/patsy/sucker.

Therefore vote PRO.


My oppoent's round, once more, is entirely disgusting and off-topic - replete with personal attacks, but without the slightest bit of substance. He even concedes the argument, but expects you to vote for him. That isn't how a debate works. He clearly had the burden of proof and never once denied this, but in lieu of providing evidence for his claims - as is typical in a debate - he devote all of his round space to attacking me. That doesn't advance a BOP, and it never will.

This isn't about me being a "tool," a "patsy," or a "sucker" - though I urge you to award me conduct for these disgusting insults, along with his assertion that I have autism - nor is this debate about comedy. We could both laugh about some of the nonsense he's written, and I do indeed find much of it funny, but that isn't the point of a debate. In a debate, you present facts to prove your side. If you don't do that, and instead lay waste to civility and the conventions of debate by devoting your rounds to attacking people, you deserve to lose.

He hasn't advanced his BOP at all: he provided zero evidence that there are "lizard people," or that they are actively taking over. He didn't defend himself against a single rebuttal, and he even conceded the debate. Let me accentuate this line from him:

"I concede the argument entirely from start to finish and declare my contender to be the winner therefore you must vote PRO."

This is a concession, followed by a non sequitur. Obviously if one concedes the debate, the voters must cast a ballot for his or her opponent.

Therefore, you must vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThelemicKnight 2 years ago
Anyone coming across all this horseshit though who is interested in what I really think should stay tuned at my brand new blog:

I am a Master of Tantra (who is willing to take on either Left-Hand Path or Right-Hand Path students) and I work with people of all religious denominations within the context/framework of their
specific faith. All religions contain the spirit of the original, universal truth.

My strongest point as a Guru is teaching within the frameworks of Daoism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, and Thelema. So from from the Black Magick of Aleister Crowley to the strange Lovecraftian magickal theories of Kenneth Grant and others within the Setian-Typhonian Tradition there is no shortage of important things you can learn from me.

Theosophical and Hindu students would also appreciate my courses.

Remember to always have compassion for all beings, universally, no matter how grouchy they seem. They're all just hurting inside and having difficulty coping with their karma and the condition of samsara in general. That is the message I'm trying to promote.

"Shalom!/SLM!" as we say in the The Storm/Sethian Liberation Movement.

And best wishes to the other Crazy-Wise masters like myself who are seeking to rouse people from their mental/spiritual slumbers.
Posted by ThelemicKnight 2 years ago
Yes, it is all rather childish and laughable, isn't it?

But nonetheless I've been researching trolling and the dynamics of that so I have to get my hands dirty on various websites if I hope to discover anything new about the social media phenomena of trolls.

I remain scientifically/academically detached from the drama though in order to get the proper gist of it all.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Pro is obviously trolling, and calls this site childish even though Pro's argument was nothing short of childish. This is really just laughable.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago

You're honestly so ridiculous that it's not even worth arguing with you.
Posted by ThelemicKnight 2 years ago
I'm not welcome on this website?

I'm so hurt that the sheep don't want me to be part of their herd.

Well, I say it is more like this website isn't welcome on my computer.

See, you have an urge to be part of something and to belong and to be accepted and approved of and to be understood. I don't have that.

I'm an introvert and enjoy keeping the facts to myself and keeping everyone else ignorant.

You ought to know something about it since you're so involved/educated in that Machiavellian fraud called the economics of Keynes.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
No, I'm not having problems understanding what you're doing here - and that you would actually insinuate as such speaks more to your inability to actually engage in an intelligent, rational discussion. Everything you've posted thus far, irrespective of the fact that it was done in jest (and if you could actually comprehend what's put before you, you'd note that my *first* comment, and every one thereafter, acknowledged you a a troll), has been self-aggrandizing bullsh1t, and joking or not, it's not welcome on this website.
Posted by ThelemicKnight 2 years ago
It is all just a gag, dude. I'm supposed to look/sound silly and idiotic.

That is why it is a gag.

Are you having difficulty understanding that?

I've done everything in my power to make sure that this gag is as obvious to you as humanly possible. I reassure you in every sentence that it is a prank/trolling and yet you keep feeding me and fail continuously to see the humor in it.

You aren't supposed to take a word I penned here seriously.

You're the one with the comprehension disability.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
You'll note that I never once attempted to boss you around, nor did I make a subjective judgment about you. This is, once again, a failure of your reading comprehension. I've said nothing that isn't already obvious to any sensible onlooker.

And with that, I'm not dealing with you anymore. Go piss someone else off.
Posted by ThelemicKnight 2 years ago
You're not the boss of me nor did anyone elect you the judge of what is funny and what isn't funny. Humor is subjective and the best humor is controversial and often mean. If it entertains me or anyone else then it has served its purpose.

You know nothing about me, my motives, or my religious/scientific/philosophical beliefs and I certainly haven't intimated at them even remotely on this site thus far.

You're not in a position to judge me. But I can judge you as a humorless primate that simply cant take a joke.

And yes I'm going to remain in character.

There are plenty of people that will find all these comments hilarious and in that case I accomplished my goal.

Besides, all of this actually amounted to a "good debate" altogether.

If I piss people off with this little stunt and just a few people start keeping tabs on me and my blogs and various other projects on the internet then I did my job. I need the viral/guerilla marketing.

In fact when I created my new spiritual blog a couple days ago I used such a stunt to get 5000 views to my blog within the first hour of the blog having been in existence and they keep checking back for updates. I'm getting a lot of useful marketing/tech data from it too. People are e-mailing me, giving me comments, etc. I know what I'm doing.

I've been at this for years.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
You're making a lot of assumptions - all of which you pulled squarely out of your rectum - that I or anyone else on this site view ourselves highly, though clearly that isn't the case. I highly admonish you to, lest you seem like a complete an utter fool, not make these kinds of rash, disgusting assumptions - and the real irony is that you actually have the gall to claim that this makes *me* look foolish. It shows how utterly deluded you are when you actually think you've in any way won, when you've done nothing more than waste your own time. I'm here for the FREELO, and clearly you've served your purpose. Other than that, you're nothing better than pond scum.

I'm going to do you a favor, and not explicate your post further. I think you're nothing more than a hopeless child who isn't self-aware enough to understand the ramifications of his actions, and the point at which a supposed jokes goes way too far - you think retreating to your "I was only kidding" defense (and, mind you, you'll duly note that I accused you of truly much earlier, though it doesn't much concern me) is in some way a palliative to the massive ars you've made yourself out to look like.

You truly are a disgrace, and while I welcome new members, I'd turn them away just as fast if they all turned out like you.

Do us all a favor, stay true to your word, and scram.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded arguments, had sh!t conduct (lol @ the insults), used far inferior sources (wikipedia, youtube, and sparknotes vs. NASA), and had terrible spelling all throughout the debate (e.g. "Erth", "Univrs", "Furthrmr").