The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
66 Points
The Contender
Wanted797
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

There is no solid evidence, thus far, for any paranormal phenomena.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,365 times Debate No: 7597
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

==========
Definitions
==========

[Word - Solid]
[Source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

Sound; reliable

[Word - Evidence]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

Something that furnishes proof

[Word - Paranormal]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

Not scientifically explainable; supernatural

[Word - Phenomena]
[Source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

==========
Clarifications and guidelines
==========

The resolution should be clear, and the definitions should be set; I affirm that there is no credible evidence for any paranormal phenomena so far. An important thing to note is that I intend to argue against paranormal phenomena AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED, not on an actual phenomenon happening. For example, it's no doubt that many Bigfoot advocates actually _experience_ something. They likely experienced meeting some other animal (a bear, etc.). However, what they claim to have experienced (Bigfoot) is what I am arguing against. That being said, here are the rules:

During Round 1, my opponent will list three different types of paranormal phenomenons. In my Round 2, I will proceed to choose one of these and refute the idea - the rest should be a simple 3-Round debate.
Wanted797

Con

There is no solid evidence, thus far, that paranormal phenomena does't exist.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

My opponent has failed, as was required by the rules of this debate, to list three different types of paranormal phenomena - not simply to waste one round by repeating his position. Obviously, I can't refute every paranormal phenomena out there in the limit of 8,000 characters because my opponent has failed to do his simple burden.

That being said, the vote (unfortunately) goes to PRO.
Wanted797

Con

My Opponent seems unable to answer my or disprove my simple reply and claims he has won already, Is he counting the votes before they are cast?
I believe so.
I would also like the point out that TheSkeptic has contradicted his words from a previous Debate I took part in.
In this debate he stated that there is proof or Gods existence or non-existence. God is a Paranormal Phenomena.

Paranormal meaning as my opponent states = "Not scientifically explainable; supernatural"

I would also like point out that TheSkeptic States in the previous debate that "Proof doesn't have to be 100%"
He basically claims that "Proof" is merely the likelihood or unlikelihood of something happening or being, Now if you apply this to Paranormal Phenomena, let's use the belief in Alien's for example, We have a very vast universe and billions of planets now the likelihood of Aliens living on one of these planets is Highly likely, So if we follow TheSkeptics idea of proof then this is proof. Now you can't go and say "well proof isn't SOLID EVIDENCE" well I'd just like to point out in the definitions my opponent provides he states.

[QUOTE]

[Word - Solid]
[Source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com......]

Sound; reliable

[Word - Evidence]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com......]

[END QUOTE]

Something that furnishes proof

This idea of Aliens is fairly solid, as we have heaps of shows and stories about it, and the HIGH likelihood on some Extra terrestrial living on some distant planet. AND this IS evidence because by following TheSkeptics Belief the proving something doesn't have to be 100% then this is SOLID EVIDENCE, As evidenced is something that furnishes proof.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

Ladies and gentlemen, this is quite simply a hilarious debate. I don't mean Jim Carrey funny, but desperate funny. My opponent not only FAILS to follow the rules of this debate, he tries to bring points from ANOTHER DEBATE into this one! And he STILL has his misunderstandings! I'm not sure I should even continue this debate as it is going nowhere constructive, but for the sake of things I shall:

[quote]"My Opponent seems unable to answer my or disprove my simple reply and claims he has won already, Is he counting the votes before they are cast?[quote]

No, but I'm saying I SHOULD win because you have disregarded the rules and guidelines I have put in place during Round 1. By accepting this debate, you have to accept these rules and guidelines - and you either deliberately didn't or you posted your one-line argument hastily.

[quote]"I would also like the point out that TheSkeptic has contradicted his words from a previous Debate I took part in."[quote]

This is ridiculous. You can't bring points or arguments from ANOTHER debate into this debate - otherwise it will defeat the purpose of trying new arguments, or even being a devil's advocate.

[quote]"This idea of Aliens is fairly solid, as we have heaps of shows and stories about it, and the HIGH likelihood on some Extra terrestrial living on some distant planet. AND this IS evidence because by following TheSkeptics Belief the proving something doesn't have to be 100% then this is SOLID EVIDENCE, As evidenced is something that furnishes proof."[quote]

I'm sorry, but this is just one example. Where are the other two as you have been TOLD TWICE?
==========
Conclusion
==========

Does my opponent even read my arguments? Does he not realize what he needs to do still? I asked for him to list three examples of paranormal phenomena, and he has simply given me one, and argued for it using material from ANOTHER DEBATE. Now while I believe in the things I argued in the debate aforementioned, I will not stoop down to him salvaging the previous debate *somehow*.

As I see it, this debate is already over, if it ever even began.
Wanted797

Con

Ok I have my 3 Paranormal Phenomena.
1. Aliens as I have previously stated,
2. The Stories surrounding the Bermuda Triangle
3. God

I purposely acepted this agument, because I believe you can not "prove" (aka solid evidence) any of there, I am simple calling out my oppoent on his contradiction in a previous debat.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Pro

[quote]I purposely acepted this agument, because I believe you can not "prove" (aka solid evidence) any of there, I am simple calling out my oppoent on his contradiction in a previous debat.[quote}

Does the audience read this? My opponent has come here and accepted by open debate with the intention of smearing it by attempting to regain his loss? Does he not even understand that because he failed to define the word prove (in the last debate), that it was my right to do so? And yet, even when I and several others had to repeat the same thing, my opponent goes on and ruins yet another debate.. So here we are, on the 4th and last round. My opponent has either deliberately or ignorantly failed to read the instructions I placed in the 1st Round.

That said, I still will follow up in this debate. Even though a one-Round debate is nothing to see (assuming my opponent gives an adequate response in his last round), I will still follow through for not my opponent's sake, but for the readers sake.

***The example I will be refuting is the Bermuda Triangle***

==========
Natural Explanations
==========

A common occurrence is for those passing by the Bermuda Triangle is when their compass suddenly changes on them. This, of course, becomes commonly attributed to some aspect of the fabled Triangle. However, what they don't realize is that there is a "line" running from Wisconsin to the Gulf of Mexico[1]. This happens when the magnetic north and the geographic north line up on each other. Navigators have know this, but your common laymen will most likely not.

One of the most famous examples concerning the Triangle - Flight 19[2] - is in fact very easily explained by the effects of magnetic poles upon a compass. The lead pilot, Lt. Charles Taylor, was not equipped with working navigational instruments. Subsequently, he and his group were disoriented and lot. As common sense would dictate, a long enough flight would mean no fuel, and eventually Lt. Charles Taylor and his squadron plummeted into the dark waters.

Hurricanes are very powerful storms that are commonly created, or "spawned" in tropical waters. Subsequently, many thousands of lives at sea have been lost due to hurricanes. The Triangle is no stranger to these forces of nature, and many examples have been contributed to the Triangle[1].

========
Disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle is not abnormal
========

But do you know what is the hardest hitting debunk of the Bermuda Triangle? The fact that scientific evaluations have "concluded that the number of disappearances in the region is not abnormal and that most of the disappearances have logical explanations." [3][4]. The real mystery is not of how the disappearances happen, but of how the paranormal associations with the Bermuda Triangle persist. Which leads me to my concluding point.

=========
The "mystery" of the Bermuda Triangle survives not because of hard scientific evidence, but communal reinforcement
=========

A very common reason for why paranormal mysteries pop up is because of communal reinforcement[5]. Communal reinforcement is " process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community." Not only that, but the process is many times "independent of whether the claim has been properly researched", and often "mass media" will further this process.

This explains why the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle, and many others, persist even in an age of highly-advanced science. This is not a mystery of the paranormal. This is not a mystery of the supernatural. This is a classic example of a sociological phenomenon at work.

==========
Conclusion
==========

Needles to say, the Bermuda Triangle is a sham. There is nothing special about the region in terms of disappearances, and most, if not all, of these disappearances can be rationally explained by either technical errors or forces of nature.

However, you the voters should take much more attention to my opponent's conduct throughout this debate. He has obviously ruined a potentially great debate with his incessant attempts at resolving another debate. He could have taken the issue into the comment sections, or messages, or even the forums. But he has decided to bring it to another debate. This is not acceptable, and it warrants a vote to PRO.

---References---
1. http://www.crystalinks.com...
2. http://www.history.navy.mil...
3. http://www.unexplainedstuff.com...
4. http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov...
5. http://skepdic.com...
Wanted797

Con

I can't even be bothered to read the bottem half of my oppoents responce. He exacly claims in the previous debate the for something to be proven it does not neeed to be 100% and im sure none of the evidence he has presented shows 100%......my oppoent has chosen the option around God, i would have actually been iterested if he had chosen god.......as i have pointed out in the last round he seems to change his oppion on things per debate, this therefore makes him false and a liar.

......I'm going to get me some marshmellows =P
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
Wanted797: HORRIBLE conduct. I do not believe I need to explain myself on that comment.
Posted by Wanted797 8 years ago
Wanted797
Hahaha LOL this was so fun. One argument I do bring forward is that there is no solid evidence for paranoraml phonomimna so thefore there is not solid evidence for the existence of god
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
It's bad conduct to accept a debate challenge having specified rules or format and then fail to follow through and comply with them.

The resolution is a bit off. One could argue that a "paranormal phenomenon" is anything not yet explained by science so that there are indeed paranormal phenomena for which there is solid evidence, the evidence being that they are phenomena not yet explained. It like arguing that there are indeed UFO's, the relevant part being that they are unidentified. Con made nothing of this and wandered through the debate.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Perhaps my definitions weren't very comprehensive - noted.
Posted by grayron 8 years ago
grayron
My problem with this debate is that paranormal phenomenon can mean a lot of different things. I wish it was more specific like aliens, ghost, or psychics. Things that are fully proven also live the catergory of paranormal phenomenon so it isn't a fair debate from the get go.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Paranormal Phenomena--

Someone who can understand when GodSands speaks.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Who the hell gave CON 7 points?
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Scratch that last part - I may have read his argument too quick. But he still broke the rules *sigh*
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I'm sure you know what I mean, I wouldn't want to have to cover every little nuance. Paranormal phenomena are usually unusual tales or experiences that lack a scientific understanding - such as Bigfoot and UFO's. Apparently, my opponent has taken amusingly taken light of your idea.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
The definition for paranormal on M-W is something that cannot be scientifically explained. So are you looking for solid evidence of something that cannot be scientifically explained? Because that's easy.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 grayron 8 years ago
grayron
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 brycef 8 years ago
brycef
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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 Zeratul 8 years ago
Zeratul
TheSkepticWanted797Tied
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