The Instigator
Bolbi
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Chicken
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Twitter.com exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
Chicken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,305 times Debate No: 30206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

Bolbi

Pro

Twitter.com is real and exists.
Chicken

Con

Ah yes, another 100% setup win for the instigator. Just kidding, Semantics time. (This shouldn't lose me conduct, I am fighting a troll and beating him at his own game.)

First is the Resolutional analysis:

Pro has failed to give any definitions, so for the purpose of this debate, please accept mine.

Exist is defined as to have life or the functions of vitality. (Physically). For example, Human's cannot exist without oxygen, or they would die. [1]


Twitter.com is defined as An information network [2]

Second is the argument from a physical existence:

Twitter.com is not a physical human being. When we refer to twitter.com as "it", we are not referring to a human being named twitter.com. Pro must prove twitter.com physically exists on this earth, or the resolution is ultimately negated.

Third is the argument from an ontological perspective:

Our existence correlates to our identity. Twitter.com must be proven to have identity, in a physical sense, and be proven to have being.

Fourth is the argument from Camus' perspective:

Twitter.com is a social networking site. It does not exist, according to Camus, all knowledge of existence lies within what we can touch and feel, the rest is construction, lacking actual being. Using this logic, Twitter.com does not exist, because we cannot touch it in a physical sense, and it is a relative unknown, there is no true being, and therefore twitter.com does not exist.

Fifth is the argument from a technological perspective:

Technology cannot have existence. Giving existence to technology justifies a technological mindset that will allow for either artifical intelligence to take over the world, or more likely the interdependence upon technology and acknowledgment of it's being leading to a faster rate of extinction. While this is a drastic impact, it is true if we give technology being, and existence. Pro is ultimately creating the technological mindset that will lead to our downfall.

Sixth is the argument from the semantical perspective:

My opponent instigated this debate believing it was a 100% guaranteed win. This should automatically lose conduct by him at least, as he/she is ultimately confining me to one answer. If Con's arguments are accepted however, Pro will not only have failed to affirm, but failed in his/her own semantical games. Thus, a vote for con is a vote for countering a troll, and teaching him/her a lesson about creating seemingly "one sided" debates.

For these reasons I urge a con vote.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] https://twitter.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Bolbi

Pro

Note: the pro is arguing that Twitter.com is real and exists, not solely that it exists. However I will argue on your terms.

First of all,
The Con side has asked, I believe in the hope that this would be an insurmountable challenge, for the Pro-side to prove that Twitter has physical existence. No website could exist without a physical existence. As the human eye to percieve light, for something to be perceived by the human eye, it must exist as photons. In Amsler's "Review of Particle Physics: Gauge and Higgs bosons", it is stated that a photon has a mass of slightly less than 1x10"-18 eV/c2, therefore it has mass, though it is negligible. In addition no website could exist without physical servers: a website is not merely an idea, it does have to come from somewhere physical, on Earth. Electricity, which powers computers and gives them either an on/off signal (0 or 1) telling them what to do, is defined as "the physical phenomena arising from the behavior of electrons and protons that is caused by the attraction of particles with opposite charges and the repulsion of particles with the same charge". Notice that it is a "physical" phenomena, not an abstract concept or construction. We can feel the charges running these servers, and we can touch them. Your first four arguments are thusly debunked.

The fifth and sixth arguments deal with the con's opinions and paranoia. Paranoia, that acknowledging that servers, photons, and electricity exists will somehow lead to a robot invasion, and the opinion that this debate was created malevolently, in an act of "trolling." These are things the debator believes, they have not provided evidence/proof for these unfounded assertions.
Chicken

Con

The following order will be, Resolutional analysis, followed by the subsequent perspectives, followed by voters. (All voter's will be potentially dropped arguments.)

Resolutional Analysis:

Extend the definitions
. My opponent strawmans and misinterpets my definition. To prove something physically exists, you must be able to prove it has actual matter, and life. Now let's look at Pro's counter,

Now onto Points 1-4 (Readdressing Resolutional Analysis+ Points 2-4)

" In addition no website could exist without physical servers: a website is not merely an idea, it does have to come from somewhere physical, on Earth. Electricity, which powers computers and gives them either an on/off signal (0 or 1) telling them what to do, is defined as "the physical phenomena arising from the behavior of electrons and protons that is caused by the attraction of particles with opposite charges and the repulsion of particles with the same charge". Notice that it is a "physical" phenomena, not an abstract concept or construction. We can feel the charges running these servers, and we can touch them. "

My opponent has a few problems here, and this was ultimately his ONLY argument against my first four points, even though he clearly concedes to my definitions (He fails to give counter definitions or an actual resolutional analysis):

1st- My opponent does not prove that the website EXISTS, only that the computer physically does. The same argument can be said about the human imagination, which is proven through my definition as lacking existence due to it's inability to be physically harnessed even though it is generated from within the human brain, which does exist. Thus, my opponents entire argument rests on the assertion that the website twitter.com IS the computer, which is clearly untrue. The Computer DOES Exist, but the website does not, according to our definition. Thus you can automatically negate.

2nd- EXTEND THE THIRD ARGUMENT- THE ONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: Because Pro fails to directly attack this, rather grouping up all 4 arguments into one "physical" argument, my opponent has cold clean conceded, that existence is based off our IDENTITY. Identity is not just generated through a physical sense, but also through our being. This means argument 3 still stands.

3rd- EXTEND THE FOURTH ARGUMENT- Camus' perspective clearly states, If i cannot touch and feel it, from MY knowledge, then constructive discourse is occurring, which ultimately lacks existence. Extend my claim that says twitter.com is a relative unknown, we cannot classify it as a being, and therefore it cannot have existence. These claims stand due to Pro's failure to actually address the argmentation within each point.

4th- THE SECOND ARGUMENT WAS STRAWMANNED- My opponent tries to say that he only has to prove a physical existence. I clearly state, as the tagline of the second argument, that twitte.com is not a physical human being, and therefore it does not exist. EXTEND- The Strawmanned argument, and the word "It" which does quite a few things, including
1) Proves twitter.com does not exist as a physical being
2) twitter.com does not have an identity, (the word "it")

5th- Pro attempts to say no website can exist without a physical existence. This is untrue, a computer can exist, and generate a website that lacks existence just as a human mind that exists can generate an imagination that is non-existent.

6th- Light and electricity-
A) Pro only says that electricity exists and thus a website must. This is untrue, because my opponent's argument skips the computer's existence. The appliance may exist, and the electrical current may exist (such as lightning), however the website still is not shown to exist. Thus his argument falls.
B) Light given off by a computer screen may exist, but the website within it does not necessarily. We cannot physically alter a website. The Computer screen may give off some existent light, but that does not constitute the existence of a website, only the computer, and the light. The website itself is in no way physically interactive with anything that exists. The Computer from which it is generated does not constitute it's existence, only the computer's. Thus this argument also falls.

Arguments 5 and 6

1st- EXTEND Argument 6. My opponent doesn't prove how this resolution was debateable before I gave definitions and a resolutional analysis. On top of that, the altered resolution would be a 100% win for Pro, therefore it is a troll debate, and he has not justified how in any way shape or form this debate was legitimate until I posted definitions and analysis. Thus, if any person were to accept, even if they were to attempt to have a real debate, Pro could just draw out the resolution in his favor, due to con failing to actually give definitions. This was a troll debate, plain and simple, there's no denying it.

2nd- EXTEND Argument 5.Pro attempts to attack argument 5 by saying that the very particles which make up machines and technology within the machines will not lead to an invasion, and that I am simply crazy. He once again STRAWMANS the argument, and asks for evidence/proof for the wrong argument. My argument was that by giving every single bit of nonexistent technology existence, Pro is leading to a faster rate of extinction, this argument is different from all other arguments because:
A) This argument was created should a stalemate occur, and should the debate go off on a tangent
B) His addressing and acknowledgement of this argument allows me to generate offense of it, Pro didn't simply say "this doesn't apply to existence", he said I am paranoid. If I prove I am not, I ultimately win the point and it still stands.

SO, argument 5 is saying that we as human being's lose our being when every piece of nonexistence is given existence, and our technological dependency rises to the point where we cannot live without it. I am not saying robots will take over the world, only that if our technological resources were diminished, our mindsets would create mass chaos, war, or just lead to such a high dependency that without nonexistent websites, we would ultimately die off at a much faster rate, hence the faster rate of extinction.


VOTERS (Quick Note- The Voters are Conceded Arguments, as per the rules of debate, the last round is for rebuttals only. Pro CANNOT bring up these points, because they go conceded due to his failure at attacking them in any way shape or form, or complete strawmanning.)

1) Resolutional Analysis- concedes definitions, and terms of this debate wholeheartedly

2) Argument 3- Ontology- Pro doesn't show twitter.com has identity, and therefore he hasn't proven existence.

3) Argument 4- Camus perspective- Constructive Discourse claim, Untouched

4) The Strawman on Argument 2 (This doesn't mean he can't attack it, it just means he strawmanned the argument)- Don't buy his argument against physical existence, as he strawmans the argument.

5) Argument 6- Even if my opponent isn't a troll, this debate was until I defined and analyzed the resolution as to create a real debate. Pro definitely should lose conduct from this.

6) Argument 5- No real response, simply says I'm saying "Robot Invasion" Which con disproves (Scroll up to the extension).

VOTE CON, DO NOT LET PRO CREATE NEW ARGUMENTS IN ROUND 3,

ALL VOTERS STAND AS CONCESSIONS.
Debate Round No. 2
Bolbi

Pro

get a job
Chicken

Con

Pro's final argument after being dismantled- "get a job".

1) No relevance to the actual debate
2) If you as the judge didn't believe he should be deducted conduct for creating this debate, then now you can deduct conduct for personal attacks.

But, let's go to the debate.

EXTEND EVERYTHING FROM ROUND 2. Simply scroll up. It's simple, Con's entire case has been cleanly extended, meaning Pro has failed his BOP, as he has not met even 1 of the 6 arguments laid out, and therefore has not proved that twitter.com exists.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
Actually, twitter.com IS a real web site. Not necessarily a good one, I didn't check, but the debate isn't about whether it's a good site, only about whether or not it exists.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Bossy, you either don't know chicken only noob-snipes, or you're calling yourself a noob.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Chicken, I'll debate this as Pro if you want.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Also, Pro really should have used, "twitter.com" as a source. That would be pretty damn conclusive. But alas, he didn't.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
lol, nvm, bolbi is a troll.
Posted by Bolbi 4 years ago
Bolbi
ur mom
Posted by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
I did? Sorry I just hate troll debates, and need to teach you a lesson.
Posted by Bolbi 4 years ago
Bolbi
*Con-side
Posted by Bolbi 4 years ago
Bolbi
You got cocky Pro-side, you got toooooo cocky.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Chicken, bolbi isn't a troll. He or she hasn't had any debates, and this debate doesn't really qualify for a troll debate. It might even qualify for the fodder for starting a philosophical debate, so consider yourself lucky to be debating such a pro ;)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
BolbiChickenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "get a job." Most hilarious refutation in a round I have ever seen. PRO... you fail. You fail epically. You fail epically in a way that is at once laughable and absurd. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Con wins.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
BolbiChickenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow this was expected. Clearly conduct goes to Con ("get a job"). Arguments as well. Pro dropped everything. My applause to Con. Only sources were used by Con.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
BolbiChickenTied
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: LOL. Clever semantics twisting
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
BolbiChickenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Chicken. I hate trolled debates
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
BolbiChickenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering
Vote Placed by Wumbology 4 years ago
Wumbology
BolbiChickenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Hahaha "Get a job". Brilliant.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
BolbiChickenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "get a job" was not a valid rebuttal to Chicken's sage arguments, was not properly capitalized and punctuated, and certainly loses conduct. Chicken was also the only one to cite sources in this debate for a full seven point win. :)
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
BolbiChickenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped all arguments in the final round.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
BolbiChickenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: con gets arguments because her arguments were more convincing than those of Pro. While her semantic approach was questionable, then again was the resolution. It was foolish to have such a '100%' debate because it left him wide open to semantical attacks. Spelling and grammar go to chicken. Conduct is tied because chicken is noob snipping but pro essentially forfeited a round.