The Instigator
edudffossip
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
93 Points

The World Will End (2012)

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 20 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,042 times Debate No: 11360
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (20)

 

edudffossip

Con

The world will not end. How you may ask? well I explain that in rounds to come.
May the best man/woman win.
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent clearly has burden of proof, so I will let him begin. He must show that the world will not end in 2012.
Debate Round No. 1
edudffossip

Con

First off let me clarify a few things for you. I do have proof. You will not win this. The side I chose is against the world ending. The world will not end in 2012. There is no scientific theories. All there are, are societies ignorant panic rumors. I really don't need to write a lot this round. So with this lack of proof I'm giving you the chance to win.
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent has presented an argument from ignorance (http://fallacyfiles.org...). He has stated that, because there are no scientific theories suggesting that the world will end in 2012, that the world will not end. The human race possesses no scientific theory on the composition of quarks; however, that does not mean that there aren't any.

My opponent has then asserted that the only "proof" that the world will end in 2012 are rumors. This is irrelevant to the resolution because my opponent's calling the public fear "panic" neither confirms nor denies the truth behind the situation.

Essentially, my opponent has no intrinsic proof that the world will not end. I will now show that it is possible, thus negating the resolution.
A) It is possible that there is an asteroid from the asteroid belt falling towards the Sun. This possible asteroid will cross the Earth's path in 2012, knocking the planet to its doom. It is possible that this asteroid has not been identified yet, and it is also possible that it also hasn't been knocked in the direction of the Sun yet either. Therefore, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the world will end in 2012. It is also possible that the governments of the world have already spotted this asteroid but agreed not to release its existence to the public to avoid panic. This possibility extends to comets and other Near Earth Objects.
B) It is also possible that the Solar System is approaching a black hole. This possible black hole has either not been spotted or the governments of the world are covering it up as discussed earlier. Therefore, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the world will end in 2012.
C) Nuclear fallout could happen in 2012. There is no reason to believe that this can't happen. Therefore, it is possible that the world will end in 2012.

With these three possibilities, it is impossible to conclude with certainty that the world will not end in 2012. We do not have the foresight to come to that conclusion. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
edudffossip

Con

Most of, if not all of the points you have made start out with "It is possible....". This isn't very convincing. Scientists already have foreseen and calculated things out. There is no such asteroid coming to hit earth.

Let me also tell you there is something called the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty also known as (CTBT). 98% of the world has either signed the treaty or is in the process of ratifying the treaty. There are only a few countries such as North Korea, India, and Pakistan who have not signed the treaty. Still it wouldn't be wise to have a nuclear fallout when 98% of the world is against it. Also the world will probably never end, people think if humans die out this means the world as ended. Wrong! This is not true the world (Earth) will still be there. If an asteroid indeed does hit the Earth Humans will die out but the earth will still be there whether part of it breaks off or the asteroid combines and expands the land mass.
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent forgets two things. First, he forgets that the resolution is an absolute statement, and second, he forgets that he has burden of proof. I am not required to prove that the world will end; however, my opponent is required to prove that it will not. As long as my possibilities stand, the resolution is not negated (I forgot I was PRO last round when I stated that it was negated).

My opponent states that because scientists have supposedly foreseen all of the activity in the entire solar system. I have two objections to this. First, I would like to point out that the Spaceguard movement by NASA has far from cataloged all of the near earth objects. For example, in 2002 alone, there were two meteor incidents that NASA had not foreseen, the Vitim event[1][2] and the Eastern Mediterranean event[3]. In 2008, meteoroid 2008 TC3 was spotted less than a day before impact[4]. Clearly, our asteroid surveillance technology is not good enough to find celestial objects heading for earth. Second, I would like to point out, again, that if such an asteroid were found, the government would have covered it up to keep society functioning without panic.

My opponent concedes my second argument.

My opponent has several objections to my third argument. First, he asserts that the world does not come to an end when the human race dies out. This is not true; in fact, the common interpretation of "the end of the world" is that the human race comes to an end. In fact, one of the definitions of world is "The inhabitants of the earth; the human race" [5] and 5 of the definitions refer to the human race. Another definition is simply "Human existence" [5]. Clearly, this objection does not hold. My opponent's second objection is that nuclear fallout cannot happen; however, he lists out three nuclear countries that have not signed the CTBT. One of them is North Korea. North Korea has a lively nuclear program [6] and is openly hostile to the rest of the world, making nuclear threats at the United States[7]. North Korea and other countries are not incapable of producing a nuclear war by 2012. Further, many countries have broken treaties throughout history for military gain. Nazi Germany is a quick example[8]. Therefore, we cannot believe that just because there is a treaty that it will be followed. There is no reason to doubt the possibility of a nuclear fallout.

My opponent has failed to negate the resolution. Vote PRO.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.planetary.org...
[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[6] http://www.fas.org...
[7] http://english.aljazeera.net...
[8] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
edudffossip

Con

First off I did prove that the world would not end because you only brought up 2 points. Your first point was that an asteroid could hit the earth. I negated this possibility by saying scientists have foreseen future events like this because hundreds of them observe space everyday. Also you brought up Nuclear fallout, this is unlikely which I proved in round 3.
Maybe you should go back and read through before you act over confident. Thanks for playing. You need to prove why the world will end

My arguement refuted

Let me also tell you there is something called the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty also known as (CTBT). 98% of the world has either signed the treaty or is in the process of ratifying the treaty. There are only a few countries such as North Korea, India, and Pakistan who have not signed the treaty. Still it wouldn't be wise to have a nuclear fallout when 98% of the world is against it. Also the world will probably never end, people think if humans die out this means the world as ended. Wrong! This is not true the world (Earth) will still be there. If an asteroid indeed does hit the Earth Humans will die out but the earth will still be there whether part of it breaks off or the asteroid combines and expands the land mass.

Vote Con. Pro doesn't know what he is talking about.
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent has essentially restated his last argument (with a few ad Hominem's thrown in). For this reason, I have nothing else to say. To reiterate my argument from last round would be a waste of time for both myself and the reader.

Recap:
The resolution is that the world will end in 2012. The "world" can refer to either the Earth or to the human race. My opponent has conceded this.
My opponent has the burden to prove that this will indeed not happen, and he has provided no intrinsic reason to believe so. Further, I have given three possibilities in which the world may come to an end. The first argument stands because science has far from found every near earth object and if it had found something that would destroy the earth or the human race, it would have reasons not to reveal this information to the public. My opponent conceded my second argument. My third argument stands because there are significant nuclear threats that have not signed the CTBT, and because nations do not necessarily obey treaties.

Therefore, my opponent has not negated the resolution as required by Burden of Proof. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nottheend 6 years ago
Nottheend
The Mayan calendar is really a map of the surrounding jungle. Any one can tell that the wind is blowing this way. The sun is rising that way. A creature killed something here you know the usual mapping of problems water or resources like food or rock or metal in some cases. Like gold.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
Nuclear Fallout is overstated....
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
gizmo: "It is equally probable that the world will end in 2012 as in any other year"

That's false. The sun is burning out, so it is much more likely that the world will end on that time scale.

However, its being equally likely does not sustain the resolution. It is as likely that invisible pink unicorns will materialize and rule the world in 2012 as in any other year. That doesn't sustain a resolution affirming it will happen.
Posted by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
Mayans Shmayans, they didn't see the Spanish coming, what makes you think they could see this!
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
It is equally probable that the world will end in 2012 as in any other year
Posted by Sylux 6 years ago
Sylux
Lol edudffossip voted all himself.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I think Pro has the burden of proof, because the resolution calls upon voters to affirm the resolution, an the default ought to be to do nothing and not affirm it. However, Con wins even with the burden proof. The claim of the resolution is an extraordinary one, so it would require extraordinary proof to uphold. Pro offered nothing beyond the possibility it might happen. It is not an argument from ignorance to point to the lack of a likely mechanism. The lack of a mechanism is established with considerable knowledge about the durability of the earth and the chances of rare events. Consider, "Resolved: No fair roulette wheel in a Las Vegas casino will come up "0" fifty times in a row in 2012." It is not impossible, but knowing the odds makes it so unlikely as to sustain the resolution.
Posted by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
How come when I start this debate everyone shoots it down in a second?
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Anyway, this crackpot wants to beat the Mayans to it.

http://www.ebiblefellowship.com...
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
"It'd be pretty abusive for him to try to give me BOP anyways."

Why? You selected Pro and the resolution is not termed in probabilities, unlike your argument itself.

Not saying his attempts are any better at this stage either. :P
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 6 years ago
kristoffersayshi
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by xxdarkxx 6 years ago
xxdarkxx
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DylanFromSC 6 years ago
DylanFromSC
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by ConsciousSpirit 6 years ago
ConsciousSpirit
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Vote Placed by dasamster 6 years ago
dasamster
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
edudffossipwjmelementsTied
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