The Instigator
lolpas
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Yassine
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The West Coast Doesn't Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Yassine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,365 times Debate No: 73643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

lolpas

Pro

There is no solid evidence that the North American West Coast is a real location.
Yassine

Con

- I thank Pro for instigating the debate & I accept the challenge.



Resolution:


- The West Coast [*]:




- Exist: have objective reality or being [**].



BOP:


- The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the West Coast does objectively not exist.



[*] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[**] Google Definitions.



Rebuttals:


“There is no solid evidence that the North American West Coast is a real location.”

1. Bare assertion fallacy.

2. Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy, thus does not prove the inexistence of the West Coast, which is Pro’s entire BOP.



=> Awaiting Pro’s arguments.



Best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1
lolpas

Pro

1) How do I know that's a real map? It could be faked. Anyone with basic artistic abilities is capable of creating a fake map.

2) "Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence" However, until the 20th century, feats such as airplanes and space travel were deemed impossible simply due to improbability. Since no evidence has yet been provided, improbability is similarly high.
Yassine

Con

Yassine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lolpas

Pro

As con required the extra time to formulate arguments against my clearly irrefutable points, I will not press the matter further.
Yassine

Con

Thanks Pro.



Preface:


- I should remind the voters that the burden of proof is on Pro to prove the non-existence of the West Coast.



Rebuttals:


1)
How do I know that's a real map? It could be faked. Anyone with basic artistic abilities is capable of creating a fake map.

- Pro has to prove that the map is indeed fake. Saying “it could be fake” is not a proof, for the chances of a given map being fake is strictly less than 100%, otherwise all maps will be fake, which is an absurd generalisation. >>> fallacy of appeal to probability [1].

- Furthermore, even if we concede that the map is fake, this would not constitute an evidence for the non-existence of the West Coast. >>> fallacy of denying the antecedent [3], which can be formulated into the following false syllogism:

1. If map of A is authentic, then A is existent.

2. map of A is not-authentic.

3. Therefore, A is not existent.

> (1) is true, by design. (2) is the assumption that Pro made. The truth of (3) is independent from the truth of (1) & (2), thus non sequitur [2].

=> Therefore, even assuming that the map I provided is fake (as suggested by Pro), this would not mean that the place which the map indicates (the West Coast) is non-existent.


2)
"Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence" However, until the 20th century, feats such as airplanes and space travel were deemed impossible simply due to improbability. Since no evidence has yet been provided, improbability is similarly high.

- Pro here seems to, ironically & unknowingly, argue for my premise ("Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence”), instead of arguing against it.



Conclusion:


- It is clear that Pro failed to uphold his burden of proof as to establish the non-existence of the West Coast, for he resorted to logical fallacies (bare assertions, argument from ignorance, denying the antecedent, faulty generalisation. . .) to get to his conclusion, thus, a fallacious one.


=> Vote Con.




Sources:


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
- Thanks @TheJuniorVarsityNovice, @dsjpk5, @Ragnar for the votes. ^_^
Posted by MissLenaElan 2 years ago
MissLenaElan
Ah. I can totally relate!
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
@ MissLenaElan

- I slept & I forgot I had an argument due. :(

- We'll get 'em next time ;)
Posted by MissLenaElan 2 years ago
MissLenaElan
Con, why did you forfeit?! This is so easy!
Posted by bman7720 2 years ago
bman7720
This should be interesting in how someone will disprove basic geography... There's a coast... and it is in the west...
Posted by lolpas 2 years ago
lolpas
I would rather not digress my arguments within the comment section before the debate has occurred. If you wish to debate me on the topic, the option is available to accept the debate.
Posted by bman7720 2 years ago
bman7720
So what should we call the coastal side on the west of America?
Posted by lolpas 2 years ago
lolpas
Done
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Change the time to post to 3 days, and I will accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
lolpasYassineTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Forfeited round. S&G: Well flawed, I only penalize the obviously awful. SOURCES: Merely having sources, is not what this is awarded for; had the sources in the final round been a round earlier when they could still be responded to sources would have gone to con, but two definitions and a picture are not quite enough. ARGUMENT: Burden of Proof pointed out, and no attempt to reach it was met, nor were there any attempts to shift it (had there been any, I'd be pointing out the fallacy instead, but even a fallacy is better than nothing). Had pro used the forfeited round to hammer in his points (or rather begin to make some points), maybe a map showing a USA without a west coast (not sure how they would work, maybe remove the ocean? Then talk about the Hollywood movie makers tricking everyone?), he might have been able to win (a stretch I know).
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
lolpasYassineTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro. Pro had, bop, but offered no arguments. Con did make arguments. Also, Pro's rebuttals were nothing more than logical fallacies. So arguments to Con. Only Con had sources, so sources to Con.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
lolpasYassineTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: lol this was terrible, but hilarious. condo to PRO for FF, but arguments to Yassine because he is the only one to provide any evidence lol. Sources for the same reason