The Instigator
Koopin
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Koopin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,444 times Debate No: 10982
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (7)

 

Koopin

Pro

There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the Easter Bunny.
Although it seems cheap to let my opponent go first, there is not much more I can say.
I am talking about the Easter bunny that goes around and delivers eggs, no word tricks.
Ore_Ele

Con

Since my opponent states "no word tricks" I will interpret any word tricks as a forfeit.

Pro says that there is not enough evidence to prove that he is not the Easter Bunny (given that Easter Bunny is capitalized, we can assume it to be a proper noun).

some definitions

Easter Bunny[1] - "The Easter Bunny (or Easter Hare) is a character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit. In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter."

Anthropomorphic[2] - suggesting human characteristics for animals (non-human)* or inanimate things

So in order for Pro to be the Easter Bunny, he must be an animal (non-human) with human characteristics. Who gives eggs, candies, and toys to good children and is almost 400 years old.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.google.com...
* - my addition to the definition, to avoid "word tricks"

I will await Pro to show his side. All he really needs to do is show that there is the possibility that he is the Easter Bunny, and I will attempt to refute those possibilities.

The ball is in your court, Mr. Bunny.
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Pro

INTRO
==========================
I would like to take this opportunity to show gratitude to my opponent for accepting this debate.
I would also like to thank the audience for reading.
I would like to say that even though this debate seems foolish or troll like, I am attempting to actually have a logical discussion.
Even though this idea seems absurd, when I thought about it, I could not find a way to refute it.
I also thank my opponent for taking this debate seriously.

DEFINITIONS:
=========================

Easter Bunny:
Wikipedia: "The Easter Bunny (or Easter Hare) is a character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit.
In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter"

Dictionary: A rabbit of folklore depicted as delivering baskets of colored eggs to children at Easter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folklore:

Wikipedia: Folklore culture, including stories, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, and so forth within a particular population comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group.
It is also the set of practices through which those expressive genres are shared.
The academic and usually ethnographic study of folklore is sometimes called folkloristics.
The word 'folklore' was first used by the English antiquarian William Thoms in a letter published by the London Journal Athenaeum in 1846.
In usage, there is a continuum between folklore and mythology.
Stith Thompson made a major attempt to index the motifs of both folklore and mythology, providing an outline into which new motifs can be placed, and scholars can keep track of all older motifs.

Dictionary: The traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people; lore of a people.

I accept your definition of Easter Bunny, but let us try to use as little from Wikipedia as we can, seeing that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, therefore can be unreliable.
I am not saying that you can not use it, I am simple asking to keep it to a minimum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibilities:

The condition or fact of being possible

ARGUMENT:
================================

There is no sure to show exactly how long humans have been roaming the earth.
Some say billions, some millions, and some thousands.
Whatever one is true, there is no doubt humans have been here awhile.
But yet, there is still so much that has not been proven.
Yes we can hypothesize, Water on Pluto, Aliens, the hidden treasures of the Aztecs…
But we still can not prove that it/they exist or do not exist.
Have you ever seen a purple diamonds that is 5 feet long?
Of course not, but just because you have never seen one does not mean that one does not exist.
It could be underground, maybe a secret tribe in Africa has it.
In most likelihood, the diamond does not exist.
But that does not prove that it doesn't.
We could say the same thing about the Easter Bunny.
There are so many possibilities that I am the Easter Bunny.
I shall list just a few below.

1. I could be a Bunny that knows how to think like a human and type on the computer.

2. I could deliver eggs to children the night before Easter.

3. I could be in hiding so the government won't capture me and take me to the zoo.

4. I could be invisible.

5. I could alter people's thoughts so they don't remember me.

6. I could be an alien from another planet where the laws of physics, order and age do not apply.

7. I could have a special metal suit that keeps me from aging.

8. I could eat a certain plant that makes me able to think like a human and type.

9. I could have a pouch that could fit many eggs in it, yet does not feel heavy.

10. I could take the shape of a dog, cat, or even a human so people would not suspect the Easter
Bunny existing.

In order to prove that I am not the Easter Bunny you would have to prove the things I listed above and more not to be true.
While you may be able to show that the things I have listed are nearly impossible, you can not prove 100% that they are not possible.

In this world there is always a variable, an unknown factor.
Even gravity could be defined as a theory. Read this short paragraph describing gravity.

Modern physics describes gravitation using the general THEORY of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of space-time which governs the motion of inertial objects. The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most calculations.

Also, read this article.
The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed.
Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time?
Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day.
It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since.
In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
In all likelihood gravity exists, but it could be that every planet has a suction monster that simply pulls things down.
Gravity i more of a religious belief.
People teach these things as fact, even though they are not 100% sure that it is true.
That is why creativity is so limited these days.
Teachers, Political leaders, scientists, parents, they all try to get rid of possibilities.
But just because you say something long and hard enough does not make it true or not true.
Today I saw a boy playing with a spinning top at my church.
He said to his mother, ‘It is a parachute!' The mother looked at him and said, ‘No, it is just a spinning top.'
This simply crushed the boy's imagination.
Although the spinning top was not a parachute, it is still a good example of how people like to end possibilities.
I could sit here and explain how the spinning top could be a parachute, but I am running out of Characters.
Ask yourself this, why did you accept this debate in the first place?
It was probably because you thought without doubt that there is no Easter Bunny.
Is that what you originally believed? Or is that what your parents and school teachers told you when you grew up?
In conclusion, we can not prove that I am not the Easter Bunny.
Remember, the resolution is "there is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the Easter Bunny."
It is not, "I am the Easter Bunny."
Therefore I do not have to prove that I am.
I am not saying that the things above are true, I am simply saying that they could be.
Even if there is a 0.0000001% chance that I am the Easter Bunny I would win this debate and there is.
I await my opponent's response.

Sources:
(1). http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...
(2). http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5). http://www.bringyou.to...
(6). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(7). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Ore_Ele

Con

It is a simple, yet common mistake. The theory of gravity is not as to whether or not there is gravity, but as to "why." We already know 100% that there is gravity with no doubt, since we have defined the force that is experienced to be gravity. We are only trying to find out "why" it there. So it is, in fact, very possibly to know something 100% does exist, and so it would also be possible to know that something 0% exists (meaning 100% does not exist).

The Easter Bunny is much like Santa Claus. We can prove that the Santa of Legend does not exist. Since the legend is that he lives at the North Pole, which we have been to (and even been under) and we know he is not there. Now maybe he is somewhere else, but then he is not the Santa of Legend, because the Legend specifically says that he lives in the North Pole (so if he lives somewhere else, he is a different Santa). We can also know his actions (per legend) are physically impossible, including his flying transgender reindeer (only female reindeer keep their antlers in winter).

We can apply the same principle to the, so called Easter Bunny. All we have to do is prove that the Easter Bunny of lore is not physically possible, and so the lore would have to be changed to allow for his existence. But since we are specifically arguing for that particular Easter Bunny, the lore is not allowed to be changed.

So looking at the actual story of the Easter Bunny [1], the Easter Bunny was a bird that broke it's wing and so couldn't fly. The goddess of fertility then (out of pity) then turned the bird into a bunny (hare) that could run really fast. She also granted it the ability to lay colorful eggs (in remembrance of its bird heritage), but only once a year. The bunny was given NO OTHER POWERS. According to folklore this was only a bunny with a few gifts, not some kind of demi-god. So that brings up a few issues.

1) She did not give him any kind of intelligence that would allow him to use a computer or even speak (or type or read).

and (mort important)

2) She did not grant him immortality, nor any extended life. So he would be dead long by now as he was a normal bunny with only a few powers.

As you are alive and able to write and read english, you cannot physically be the Easter Bunny of traditional folklore.

[1] http://www.professorshouse.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Pro

INTRO
======================
Thank you for posting you next argument. I would like to say that I will be arguing a lot from your own source today.

ARGUMENT
======================
So you claim that the original story is that a goddess gave the bunny the powers and that the bunny could only lay eggs once a year.
You then claim that since the goddess did not give me...oops, I mean the bunny any special powers then it must be impossible.
What you fail to realize is that you are going against your own definition! What we have been arguing this whole time is off of the original definition.
Let me remind you what it is.

"The Easter Bunny (or Easter Hare) is a character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit.
In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter"

You yourself listed that definition.
There are many tales of the Easter Bunny; there is no way of telling which one is the real original.
The story could have been changed or altered.
Realizing that, we made it a point to tell which story we are talking about.
That is the story that most Americans go by.
That there is a bunny that goes around and delivers eggs to children.
It is like saying that you want to argue about the sky, and then you go and argue about the ocean.
You said in the first round:
"So in order for Pro to be the Easter Bunny, he must be an animal (non-human) with human characteristics.
Who gives eggs, candies, and toys to good children and is almost 400 years old."
Nowhere did you say that I would also have to have been blessed by a goddess.

Also, the resolution is not,
"There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the Eater Bunny from the original story."
The source that you listed in round two even says that there are many different stories.
Here is an article from the site you listed:
"Many Asian cultures hail the rabbit as a sacred messenger to the divine.
Even for Buddhists and Egyptians the rabbit has special meaning.
And of course Western Europe has their strong beliefs in the rabbit as a symbol of fertility and new life.
It is thought that the knowledge of the Eastern traditions to do with the rabbit must have spread to Europe as communication between these two groups increased.
Also the fact that the two groups beliefs about the rabbit blended so well together must have helped keep these traditions alive.
Even Native American peoples and the ancient Mayans had their beliefs about the mysticism of rabbits a.k.a. bunnies."

Also, even if we were going by the story you listed you would have to prove that I do not get powers later on.
Even if the story does not say I do, something else could have given me powers, since I already exist.
One of my favorite quotes is, "Not everything is written down on paper.
And not everything written down on paper is true. "

One of the definitions that I used from the dictionary was, "A rabbit of folklore depicted as delivering baskets of colored eggs to children at Easter."
Folklore can not be proved or unproved.
Yes they are stories, but many times they are based on facts.

Now on the subject of gravity, I shall not get heavily into it because it is not about the bunny.
Yes, gravity is the word that we use to define the force.
But I was not talking about the word; I was talking about it being real.
There is still the possibility that the suction monster exist, but we just call him gravity.

I could argue Santa Claus to, but it would be taking away from the essence of this debate.
All I will say is that Santa Claus, like other stories, could exist.
He could be invisible, or he could erase peoples memories, the roofs of the houses he lives in could be painted white so it would not be picked up by the satellites.
I will stop here with the Santa Claus business.

I again look forward to your response.

Sources:
(1). http://www.professorshouse.com...
Ore_Ele

Con

It looks like this may very well turn into a debate upon semantics. Pro states in the resolve (and in the comment section before the debate was accepted) that there is not enough evidence to prove that he is not THE Easter Bunny. He did not say "an" easter bunny.

So we must go on debating in regards to him being THE Easter Bunny. And in order to do that we must first know what THE Easter Bunny is. That is why I brought up the folklore, the original folklore. Which I have shown that the original Easter Bunny he could not be as it is not possible by the laws of nature or physics for that original bunny to be on a computer typing (in a reasoning fashion) or to even still be alive. I still fully believe that because he is referring to "THE" bunny, that he must be "THE" original, not "A" knock off easter bunny.

One, might claim that this is the use of "word tricks" (which would deem an auto forfeit on my part), but before that claim is made, allow me to justify my reasoning.

1) In order to do a debate such as this, trying to prove or dis-prove something, that thing must be something solid and as concrete as possible to prevent confusion. We can see the importance in making sure we are talking about solid concept and not something so vague as it has ruined debates here in the past [1].

2) The purpose of this debate was to see if it is truly possible to prove a negative. And while I am solidifying the definitions to make it possible to argue them, I am not changing from the original intent of the debate. I am trying to prove the negative of something tangible, instead of the negative of something vague, but I'm still attempting to prove a negative.

[1] http://www.debate.org...

I have no further arguments on this and I highly doubt that I can fill the last 2 rounds with anything of meaning, and so request that my opponent, take his turn as if it was the last round and allow us to end it here, unless he, in fact, has enough to say to fill all 5 rounds. If he agrees, then after his final post, we will both forfeit together to end this. If he wishes to continue, then we will continue and honorable fight.
Debate Round No. 3
Koopin

Pro

INTRO
============================

Thank you for posting your last argument.
There is not to much I need to say this round seeing that my point is already made.
I will break my argument into three parts.

ARGUMENT
============================

First of all, my opponent has almost forfeited this round.
One should know that you must debate off of the original definitions.
You can not go back and change the meaning.
You may have been able to pull that off, but if you look back at your own definition in round one you would see that your definition says:
"THE Easter Bunny is a character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit. In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter"
Your own source admits that we are talking about The Easter Bunny.
You also said,
"So in order for Pro to be THE Easter Bunny, he must be an animal (non-human) with human characteristics.
Who GIVES EGGS, CANDIES, and TOYS to good children and is almost 400 years old"
You claimed yourself that if this were possible than I would be The Easter Bunny.
Now you want to go back on your own argument?
I am sorry but that is not how it works. I have been debating off of your argument own arguments.
So you can not change them whenever you please.
You have still failed to prove that I am not the Easter Bunny.
---------------------------------------------------
Secondly, in round 3 I did give a possibility that I could be the Easter Bunny you speak of in your story.
I said myself,

"Even if we were going by the story you listed you would have to prove that I do not get powers later on.
Even if the story does not say I do, something else could have given me powers, since I already exist.

One of my favorite quotes is, "Not everything is written down on paper.

And not everything written down on paper is true."

You failed to refute that, therefore you have not deafened your own claim.
There are many things that have happened in history that people do not read in their history books.
There are also many things that have happened that are not in history books at all.

----------------------------------------------

Lastly,
You failed to attempt to refute my argument about your story not being the first story.
Many stories are changed around.
Most of your source and other sources tell of how it is possible that it was the first story.
But no one knows for sure. Read this article,

"The original Easter bunny was PROBABLY associated with the Pagan equinox festival that predated Easter.
The Saxons devoted the month of April to celebrating their goddess of spring and fertility, who was, not coincidentally, named Eastre.
Eastre's sacred animal was the hare - not surprising since the rabbit is one of the most common symbols of fertility and rebirth."

In January 2009 I dyed my hair bright purple for the fun of it.
Now, if someone saw that and writes it down that I was blessed by a goddess that gave me purple hair, will that mean that I never had my hair dyed without a goddess?
Of course not.

OUTRO
=============================
After careful thought I have decided to accept my opponents offer. This will be the last post.
I thank my opponent for this fun and cleaver debate. I would also like to thank the audience for reading.
Please vote Pro.

Sources:
(1). http://www.holidays.net...
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting ending this debate early. And post this as a forfeit round (not a forfeit debate), so that we can get on to the voting.
Debate Round No. 4
Ore_Ele

Con

I wish my computer could see that video. Anyway, final forfeit round.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
that was the point of this debate though.
Posted by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
You are never called upon to prove a negative. Zat is a law of loggic.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
By proving that to be the Easter Bunny would be physically impossible. I should have more solidly defined the "Easter Bunny" in my opening post, to set clear parameters of what needed to be disproven.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Then how the **** did you expect to win? There's only one thing in the universe you can know for certain, and that's your own existence; and you can't even prove that in a debate!
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
@Zetsubou.
Yea, In order to win this debate I had to spend a lot of time writing.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Yes, that was the challenge that I accepted, knowing that it was near impossible and much harder then if I went with "reasonable doubt," but I went into it full knowing the chances.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Roy, Ore ACCEPTED that all Koopin had to do was show the possibility that he was the easter bunny. Given that, it was a clear victory for Koopin.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
I did not see that com'in in round 2. Koopin writing that much?!?!
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I hope I can be pardoned for taking this debate even slightly serious, but Pro only offered ten magical alternatives and then depended upon parsing what "prove" means. That encourages thinking like a lawyer over common sense, which is a crime against nature. Much of the meaning of language is derived from context, and such fine parsing ignores the basic mechanism of context. It was never in doubt what "Easter Bunny" or "prove" means.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
I was thinking of taking this debate to the "funny" side, by saying that Kooplin cannot be the Easter Bunny, since he is clearly a chicken (as per his avatar), but I wanted to try to keep it serious.

Anyway, I thank everyone that voted for me, but I think I truly messed it up by not defining "Easter Bunny" more concretely in the first round. Had I done that, I may have had a better chance.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
KoopinOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by lambda 7 years ago
lambda
KoopinOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Scott_Mann 7 years ago
Scott_Mann
KoopinOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
KoopinOre_EleTied
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 atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
KoopinOre_EleTied
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 brooke_bowen 7 years ago
brooke_bowen
KoopinOre_EleTied
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 bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
KoopinOre_EleTied
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