The Instigator
mission42
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

The world will end on December 21st 2012

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,132 times Debate No: 22642
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

mission42

Con

Let the first round just be acceptance, and then we will begin.
phantom

Pro

Good luck to my opponent. She'll need it.
Debate Round No. 1
mission42

Con

Thank you phantom for accepting my challenge, now to begin with the debate.

The theory of the so-called "doomsday" all began with the Mayan calendar ending on December twenty-fist of two thousand twelve. People then assumed that the Mayans must have predicted the end of this world. They have gone crazy over this idea that the word must end on the day that the Mayans have chosen. Now let me state my arguments:

1. Never did the Mayans say that December 21, 2012 was doomsday. If the Mayans actually did have the gift of seeing the future, then for all we know, it could rain gumdrops and chocolate on 2012. Or else they just thought that 12/21/12 was a funny looking date.

2. When the Mayans created their calander, leap year had not yet been invented. If so, the doomsday they predicted would have occured a long time ago.

3. The theory that the world will end on 12/21/12 is only an assumption, and a weak one at that.

4. Nobody knows why the Mayans ended their calender on that specific date. For all we know, they could've run out of paper!

Therefore, you can see why the "doomsday" prediction is quite absurd.
phantom

Pro

First I would like to note my opponents large "lack of evidence" in supporting her contentions.


My case



My first contention will be a philosphical argument that proves my assertion true, due to the likelyhood of factual siliohism.


P.1 If ontological inequencies exist, factual silliohism would be the most
plausable explanation.
P.2 Ontological inequencies exist.
P.3 Therefore, factual silliohism is true.


Defence

P.1

Self evident, unless my opponent presumes disinvisiary planotaism to be true, which I am sure she doesn't.

P.2

The point of contention...

The mere concept of this premise does not entail onto-illogical equivocation. While we may conceive of beings as having the property of being unkowing, contemplations and actions are not properties at all. More specifically, existence is not a perfection, thus it does not entail onto-illogical equivocation. So the second assertion is viable. This concerns whether our concept of the human mind corresponds to anything real, and pure reason can tell us that is valid. We can show that the classic onto-omnia argument fails by keeping the erroneous second premise and replacing the first one with: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable." This parallel conclusion is clearly false. Only observation could determine that such things are natural. Logic cannot be a physical entity. As we can be demonstrated (x-~b^) there are no necessarily true propositions, for this would contradict all things that are evident in everything known about ontological inequency. They are essentially products of the mind. Thoughts are physical products of a physical mind. In order to uppose this you would have to believe [y,x,c~zy~-~x} as a form of logic is sound, whichwould clearly be absurd.

To make it more simple.
1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu

Where B = possible alternate places, c = logic, u = the human mind.


Necessary existences entail maximal loga-logical plains of encompassments.

To stray farther away from metaphysics into physics, the law of conservation of energy postulates a constant quantity of energy in the universe. Energy can not be created nor destroyed; only change form. This suggests a number of things, but most rellevant is the fact that this would suppose that equalified contingint incompatibilism neccesitates the LOC which therefore proves factual siliohism. If my opponent denies that the mind would need to create energy, then he suggests that a non-physical factor can affect already existing physical things which would clearly be absurd.

If my opponent were to disagree with this, she would have to believe (tilogy assumed) that music, food and smell were all objective.




P.3

Universally quantified statements do not commit one to the existence of classes of alternate plains, whereas existential statements (Such as M-P1) do. Hence P1 and M-P1 are not logically equivalent. This Prima Facie concludes the fact that alternate utilities encompass all plains of existence.

Not much to say on my opponents case, as my case refutes all her points, but I would like to note again, that she is very poor in supporting her assertions, and does not use evidence.

Sources

[1] http://www.csulb.edu......
[2] http://www.informationphilosopher.com......
[3] http://www.consciousentities.com......
[4] http://plato.stanford.edu......
[5] Melnyk, Andrew. A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism, pp. 298-304.
Debate Round No. 2
mission42

Con

Erm... are we debating on the same subject?
phantom

Pro

I am affirming the resolution "The world will end on December 21st 2012" using a philosophical argument. If you think you can refute my points on Ontological inequencies, factual silliohism, and the other things I have presented, go ahead.
Debate Round No. 3
mission42

Con

mission42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
I've been found out!

*Looks around*

*Jumps in dumpster*
Posted by mission42 4 years ago
mission42
I'd just like to point out that there is nothing on the internet about ontological inequencies or factual silliohism, inequency and silliohism aren't even words
Posted by beatmaster2012 4 years ago
beatmaster2012
the mayan calender wasn't written on paper, bro.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Get ready for some magic
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 4 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
What Zaradi said.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Imabench! We need you!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
mission42phantomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeited
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
mission42phantomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF