All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

# The world will end on December 21st 2012

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3

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: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,373 times Debate No: 22642
Debate Rounds (4)

 Con Let the first round just be acceptance, and then we will begin.Report this Argument Pro Good luck to my opponent. She'll need it.Report this Argument 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.Report this Argument 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. DefenceP.1Self evident, unless my opponent presumes disinvisiary planotaism to be true, which I am sure she doesn't.P.2The 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. Bu3. CuWhere 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.3Universally 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.Report this Argument Con Erm... are we debating on the same subject?Report this Argument 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.Report this Argument Con mission42 forfeited this round. Pro okReport this Argument
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
I've been found out!

*Looks around*

*Jumps in dumpster*
Posted by mission42 6 years ago
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 6 years ago
the mayan calender wasn't written on paper, bro.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
Get ready for some magic
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 6 years ago