The Instigator
daboss
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

The world will NOT end in 2012

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 12 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,224 times Debate No: 8133
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (12)

 

daboss

Pro

Because i stand resolved that the world will NOT end in 2012 i offer the following arguments

1) The bible
The bible states that no one on the earth can forsee the coming of the end of the earth.(revelations) The bible also states that the horses must come first although some believe the first horse has already came(plague) the rest have not.

2)Myans
the myans have been wrong on multiple occasions and all of their predictions are very vague and could be put into apects in alot of things. maybe the myans just stopped their calendar on that date for alot of other reasons other than that was when the world was oging to end.

3)its been predicted
it has been said the end of the world is coming for a while. they stated it would end during WWII also that it would end in 2000 what makes this part so different

Thank You
KRFournier

Con

I thank my opponent for this interesting debate and hope to do it justice as contender.

My argument is brief and to the point. The future, by its very nature, is unpredictable. My opponent asserts the world will NOT (emphasis his) end in 2012. However, he cannot be any more certain of his prediction than the doomsayers he so readily criticizes. In so doing he commits the gambler's fallacy, asserting that since past predictions have been false, future predictions are more likely to be false. Just as a coin toss is 50-50 regardless of past circumstances, the probability of the world ending--however small--is the same for 2012 as it is for 2009.

While both my opponent and I would agree that Armageddon is not likely to occur within the next 5 years, he cannot say with absolute certainty the world will not end in 2012.

I turn it over to my opponent for his critique.
Debate Round No. 1
daboss

Pro

I'm not saying that because they were wrong in the past automatically makes them wrong i'm just saying that it gives it a better chance.

1)BIBLE
the bible states that no one can predict the end of the world and since the myans predicted it then their's no way that they can every be right

2)refutation
he didn't really refute any of my arguments so with that i stand with alll of my 3 points still standing

thank you
KRFournier

Con

I'll respond to my opponent, in this round, point by point. His words are proceeded by arrows for easy reading:

--> I'm not saying that because they were wrong in the past automatically makes them wrong i'm just saying that it gives it a better chance.

This is precisely what the Gambler's fallacy is. If you flip a coin 10 times, and 8/10 of those came up heads, are the odds better that tails will flip next? No, the odds of getting tails are always 1 in 2, regardless of previous results. According to your logic, the more people are wrong, the more likely they'll be wrong in the future. This is not the case. The fact that past predictions have failed has no bearing on future predictions. Now, if the resolution were "The world probably will not end," then you'd be right in basing your argument on past failed predictions. But you are asserting with absolute certainty the world will not end in 2012. How is your prediction absolutely guaranteed to be infallible? To answer simply, it is not. Your prediction is as much guesswork as those predicting the world will end in 2012.

--> 1)BIBLE
the bible states that no one can predict the end of the world and since the myans predicted it then their's no way that they can every be right

This argument supports my position, not yours. The bible is correct in reminding us that the world's end cannot be predicted, one way or the other. From a biblical vantage point, it is just as silly to predict the world will end on a specific year as it is to predict that it won't.

--> 2)refutation
he didn't really refute any of my arguments so with that i stand with all of my 3 points still standing

I did refute your arguments, all three of them, with a single paragraph. All three assert that the future cannot be predicted, yet the resolution does just that. In other words, your own arguments refute the resolution.

My argument is simple and it simultaneously supports my position and refutes my opponent's:

A. The future cannot be accurately predicted with certainty
B. The resolution attempts to accurately predict the future with certainty
C. Both A and B cannot be true
D. If A were false, we would all know the future
E. No one has been able to consistently and accurately predict the future with certainty, so A is true
F. Since A is true, B is false.

The resolution stands negated.
Debate Round No. 2
daboss

Pro

point by point!

1)Gamblers Fallacy
hes stating that if you flip a coin and flip it again the first flip will not affect the second..
The myans stated many predictions
the myans would be more similar to predicting both before either happens if they chose heads then heads and the first one is tails their's no way that he can be right.

2)Bible
He states that my argue helped him but people have predicted that the end of the world WILL come in 2012 but it is said in the bible that you can never predict the end of the world.. not you can never predict when it won't end as my colleague appareantly believes. and since people have predicted it will end in 2012 it proves that they're wrong no matter what

3)Refutation
He did not refute any arguments he just named off things that someone reading this debate might interpret it as an argument but he did not turn it or take it out he just simply stated random facts that i never stated

His subpoints A-F stand absolutely no ground in this debate showing that his:
I've already stated his subpoint A
the resolution was not meant to accurately predict the future stated in his subpoint B
A and B could both be true but i'm not claiming subpoint B.
his subpoint d is common sense
and subpoint E. just helps my case

so with that i strongly urge an affirmative vote in todays round.
Thank you
KRFournier

Con

Dear readers, my case is simple. My opponent is predicting that the world will not end in 2012. He supports his claim in three ways. First, he cites the bible's stern warning that the end of the world is not predictable. Second, he cites the failed predictions of the Myans. Third, he cites the failed Armageddon predictions circa WWII and the year 2000. He uses three supporting arguments to forcefully assert that the future cannot be predicted. He cannot have it both ways. If the end of world is as unpredictable as he would have us believe, then the resolution must be false.

This is enough to rest my case. However, it would be inconsiderate not to respond to his three points in Round 3.

1) Gambler's Fallacy

I apologize if I am obtuse, but I cannot make sense of my opponent's grammar on this point. Yes, the Mayan's made many predictions that proved incorrect. It is illogical, however, to assume that they would make future predictions easier or more accurate. Predictions about the future, by their nature, are no better than guesses. It stands to reason, then, that my opponent's guess that the world will NOT end in 2012 is as sound as anyone else's guess that it will.

2) Bible

If I understand my opponent clearly, he concludes that since the Bible says the end of the world cannot be predicted, then any prediction must be false, as though God says, "Well, they think it's gonna happen in 2012, so I can't do it then." According to this line of reasoning, so long as humanity predicts the world to end each year, the world will never end and God is subject to the will of his creatures. This simply is not cogent. The Bible tells us that no man knows when the world will end. Predicting our doom is certainly futile... EITHER WAY.

3) Refutation

My opponent, in his frustration, resorts to false assertions:
- He says I didn't argue, but only spouted off random things. I guess the voters will settle this matter.
- He says I stated random facts the my opponent never stated. They weren't random facts, they were based on common sense. The fact that the future cannot be accurately predicted is common sense since no one has yet to consistently and accurately predict the future.
- He says the resolution was not meant to accurately predict the future. Why then did he emphasis NOT? I've read the resolution over and over, and it sure looks like he's predicting the future to me.
- He says A and B cannot both be true. Really? It can simultaneously be the case that the future cannot be accurately predicted but that my opponent can accurately predict the future? The law of non-contradiction applies here. Either the future can be predicted or it can't.
- He says E helps his case, but I listed it in the context of a logical argument that utterly destroys the resolution in question.

Having responded to my opponent, I will rest my case. If this debate is to be judged on reason and logic, then the vote should justifiably go to me.

Thanks again to my opponent for speedy and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lziggyrun12 7 years ago
lziggyrun12
Pro had good points, he just needed to further elaborate on his points. As for the world ending, I highly doubt it. I do believe the economy will go further into its downfall, but not enough to end the world.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
My apologies... I can't count today... that should be 13 * 20^5, or 41,600,000...
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
13.0.0.0.0 has no significance in base 20... all that means is a VERY LONG TIME.

In base 20, assuming that 1 on the Mayan calendar is 1 year as we know it... that number is 13 * 20^6 or in other words, 832,000,000. I fail to see how 832,000,000 is in any way related to 12/21/2012....
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Under the resolution CON's duty was to prove that the Earth WILL end in 2012. He admitted that it is impossible to forsee the future, therefore making it impossible for him to win. PRO looses points for conduct, grammar/spelling, arguments, and sources is tied. PRO should have exploited CON's error.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
13.0.0.0.0 baktun on the Mayan long count calendar is December 21st, 2012 on the Gregorian calendar.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Well whatever the Gregorian date is, is doesn't make sense on the Mayan Calendar....
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
It's not a palindrome. It's 12/21/2012.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Oh and the galactic alignment argument is BS too - we've already HAD the best alignment... it passed without incident more than 10 years ago in 1998.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I'd take one of these... I think it's pretty clear that the world will be around a lot longer than 2012...

Think about this... the Mayan calendar is in base 20... so the date 12/20/2012 doesn't even make sense in Mayan thinking. That's just the Gregorian adaptation. The fact that it's a palindrome is irrelevant. We'd be just as excited if it translated as 11/20/2011 or 10/20/2010 or 09/20/2009/ or (OMG WHY DIDN'T THE WORLD END THEN?) 08/20/2008... Need I go on?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Lmao at using the Bible to prove an argument. I agree that the world will not end in 2012, but Con clearly won this.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
dabossKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
dabossKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
dabossKRFournierTied
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 
Vote Placed by prov1s 7 years ago
prov1s
dabossKRFournierTied
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 snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
dabossKRFournierTied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
dabossKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
dabossKRFournierTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
dabossKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by animea 7 years ago
animea
dabossKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
dabossKRFournierTied
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