The Roman Empire existed in at least one point in time.
Debate Rounds (3)
I don't get why people believe things so easily. I remember in school giving my teachers a very difficult time. Simply, because my default setting is not to believe. I mean seriously why would you believe in unicorns unless there was solid proof? I remember giving my math teachers hell and demanding proof that 1+1=2. I never got a satisfactory answer.
I remember in high school singing "nothing is real, nobody is real" happily.
I never accepted in the first place, mathematics, the Earth being round, vaccines, Eskimos, Jesus, and Europe.
Btw, supposedly the Roman empire was in Europe. So, if I don't believe in Europe I don't believe in the Roman empire. Burden of proof is on my opponent, since why should I have to provide the non-existence of unicorns? Thanks for the debate.
According to Con, Con doesn't exist and all arguments made by Con shall be negated on the grounds that they have to first be proven to exist beyond information and knowledge for the voter to take them into account. Furthermore, if Con rebuts a single point I make, Con is acknowledging not only my existence but the existence of my argumetns as well as language and extensions of logic such as grammar, spelling and semantics.
Let's be a trendy Wendy and say oh deary me 'nothing exists', well if nothing exists then everything is nothing and thus if the Roman Empire is also nothing and nothing exists then the Roman Empire existed.
Let's also look at the information within 'nothing' that leads us to believe that the roman Empire existed in at least one point in time:
"The inventions and innovations which were generated in the Roman Empire profoundly altered the lives of the ancient people and continue to be used in cultures around the world today. Advancements in the construction of roads and buildings, indoor plumbing, aqueducts, and even fast-drying cement were either invented or improved upon by the Romans. The calendar used in the West derives from the one created by Julius Caesar, and the names of the days of the week (in the romance languages) and months of the year also come from Rome. Apartment complexes (known as `insula), public toilets, locks and keys, newspapers, even socks all were developed by the Romans as were shoes, a postal system (modeled after the Persians), cosmetics, the magnifying glass, and the concept of satire in literature." - (Mark, 2011)
So, let's all be fancy Nancies and ignore satire, Julius Caesar and the whole shebang and say nothing exists.
I will now explain why, if nothing exists, then anything possible exists. If nothing, which is a complete absence of anything, exists then anything that is absent is said to have existed. Do ghosts exists? If nothing exists and ghosts are said to be nonexistent then they are said to be nothing and since nothing exists they exist.
Let me make this simpler:
P1: If something exists, it is something.
P2: If something isn't something, it is nothing.
P3: Nothing exists.
P4 (Con's own logic): Everything that is said to exist actually does not.
P5: The Roman Empire is either part of everything or is nothing.
C1: P1+ P4 = Nothing exists
C2: C1 + P2 + P3 = No matter whether or not something exists, it either exists as something or as nothing.
C3: C2 + P5 = The Roman Empire either exists if the evidence for it is taken to exist or it exists as nothing and thus existed.
As for time, the same logic applies.
Time has to be real because this debate has deadlines.
Either this debate isn't real and thus Con's entire case can be negated as nonexistent or it is real and I win.
Joshua J. Mark. “Roman Empire,” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified April 28, 2011. http://www.ancient.eu....
Nice try, but here's where your logic breaks down.
"P3: Nothing exists."
Nothing is the absence of existance, therefore the idea of nothing existing makes no sense. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, but cold never can.
As for the .edu link, this could easily be a conspiracy. Think of all the myths already traveling around. What is just one more added to them? No big deal.
I am negating what conspiracists tell me are Con's arguments on the grounds that they are nonexistent. Until it is proven to me that they exist, I shall not address them.
Con has yet to exist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.