The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Will the Solar System ever come to an end?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 83730
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Yes, our solar system will one day some to an end. Our sun is expanding. Soon, it will get so big it will swallow up Mercury, then Venus, and then Earth. That is just a part of how a star is destroyed. After our sun consumes the soar system, it will be a red giant. After that, it will become a planetary nebula, then a white dwarf. This won't happen for billions of years, but yes, it will happen.


My opponent holds to the burden in this debate. My opponent's argument is negated by one simple fact, the sun does not exist! We are all living in a holographic and ultimately fake world much similar to the Matrix, this hypothesis is known as the simulation hypothesis. [1]

There are many good reasons for why we may live in a fake reality.

"The fact that we don't question the mainstream version of ancient history and the origins of our world. Even though there are many unanswered questions about the origins of the human race and civilization, we blindly believe the few limited, possible answers we have memorized in school." [2]

What is the ultimate source of information? We get information from school, more specifically teachers, more specifically books / internet, more specifically some random person that we do not even know. What if this person that we don't know doesn't even exist. What if this is all in our imaginations, our minds?

"You have been totally convinced that issues such as overpopulation, traffic congestion, environmental pollution, and famine in certain parts of the world are normal for our times and we can’t do much about them." [2]

Since when has any of this been considered normal?

"You have a job you hate, but no matter how unhappy and miserable you are with it you don’t consider leaving it only because of the money and luxuries it offers you, and because you have no other prospects to turn to." [2]

This emphasizes our ignorance on the meaning of life, putting us in no position to judge whether or not we live in the Matrix. Since I am bringing this poitn up, I am clearly aware of it and am therefore beyond it. This means that my opinion should be valued over yours.
Debate Round No. 1


I first would like to address the unrealistic approach my opponent has taken. If our sun did not exist, neither would we! We would need the sun for heat, the chemicals it gives off and much more. It could not be artificial, for it would be to hot to create and it could not be alien life. This is a unrealistic scenario for the following reasons,
-People on Earth are extremely loud. If there was an alien species, it would have to be intelligent and able to communicate with one another to do this, making noise. We would be able to hear them, as they could hear us, (if they existed, which they do not).
-We have things recording space, and would have caught the hologram. Also, our machinery has landed on planets. We would not have been able to land on it, let alone take some of it back to Earth, if it were a hologram.
-Gravity is needed to hold all of the planets, including Earth together into the solar system. A machine wouldn't be able to create enough gravity to keep us rotating around the sun from billions of miles away. Even if it were made, we would see it, which we haven't,
-So much research on Earth and in space is proof that we are not living in a hologram, (I will not go into all of these reasons, if you would like, look up cells and atoms, a hologram could not create something so small and detailed)
Another thing I would like to call out is my opponents ties to history. We have artifacts proving history that happened, and have the corpses of the people who lived long ago. Also, history is questioned every day, revealing new things of Earth's past all the time.
Another thing is my opponents lack to research the topic more closely. The research people obtain is most of the time cited. That is a common thing most people are to know. Issues around the world is seen by people who travel there to help. We have recordings, documentaries and more proving around the world problems. People leave their jobs all the time to something more enjoyable. Someone close to me has recently done done that exact thing, meaning I have first hand witnessed proof that shows that your information is incorrect. My final point I would like to make is that this theory did not exist until the Matrix came around. Just because a new movie came out, that doesn't mean the way the Earth functions is completely different.
In conclusion, there will be an end to our solar system, just as there is an end to solar systems all around the universe.


Pro has failed to understand the K. My opponent has also failed to grasp the concept of the matrix. The matrix is when we are all brains in a vat hooked up to a super computer and are under the illusion that we are living in the real world when really we aren't. Therefore, there may be a Sun however there isn't a sun in our world since our world is just an illusion. Our galaxy is just an illusion and so is our solar system. Since our solar system is an illusion too this means that the solar system does not exist because by definition, the solar system cannot be an illusion [1]. We do not need the Sun because we are just illusions and are really just brains. We may require the chemicals from stars however the star known as the Sun and our galaxy are just illusions.

Since the aliens are in the real world and we are in the Matrix we would not be able to hear them. Furthermore, since we are only brains, we have no ears and therefore all sounds we hear are halluncinations formed and falsely depicted by the brain.

How do you know we have things recorded in space? The people telling you this (as said in my contentions) are people working from the real world and this information is all false.

Gravity doesn't exist in this world. Everything exists because your brain created it this way. It is an illusion performed by the brain.

My opponent assumes that holograms (and illusions) cannot be detailed. Firstly, illusions can be detailed from what we already know. Secondly, if the people on the real world are able to create the Matrix then I'm pretty sure they can make detailed holograms, especially since these aren't even real - just illusions created by the brain.

These artifacts do not prove anything. They could easily be fakes created by the brain to fool us into believing that we are in the real world.

Documentaries can be fake and created by the brain. I do not know what others see and therefore this is untrustworthy evidence since I have no proof that you or others have actually seen these things other than pictures (i.e. illusions) and by what you say over the internet.

The matrix movie allowed clever people to actually think about it as a philosophical context. Just because the theory came out late, doesn't mean that it is false [2]

In conclusion, our solar system cannot come to an end because it never existed and nothing can end unless it has begun at some point [3]. The solar system is an illusion and so is everything in it. We are living in the Matrix and are just brains. Accept reality please!

Debate Round No. 2


Even if this ridiculous theory my opponent has presented is true, the hologram would soon get torn apart by a black hole or a shifting galaxy. Besides, this 'hologram' my opponent speaks of would obviously be costing the aliens materials. They would soon run out of use for us and leave us to die. So, which ever theory is true, the solar system will still come to an end.


Pro apparently doesn't understand the difference between a hologram, an illusion and the Matrix. If we are living in the Matrix (as I have shown), then black holes and shifting galaxies do not exist in this world. These aren't holograms, they are illusions programmed into our brains. Since in the real world they are in the future, they live in a very different world to this one and in that one they are living on a planet 5 billion times the size of Earth with almost infinite resources. Also, they have different time due to their universal placement and therefore a year for them is a second for us. This means that every year, they only have to pay for 1 seconds worth of materials rendering our solar system non existent. If something is non - existant (as described), then it cannot end because what begins to exist can only end. If something never began to exist, it cannot end.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: Themeaman909// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: We can't prove if aliens are controlling us in a supercomputer, so we don't know at all if these "aliens" will end our solar system or not. I think that the matrix idea was not countered well by pro, but it still made little sense to as if we could prove it, or if our solar system, real or fake, would end. Remember, if the aliens pull the plug on the people in the matrix, than "technically" our solar system "dies".

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't justify conduct. (2) The voter doesn't assess Pro's arguments to come to a decision that favors Pro. Instead, the voter seems to place the burden of proof on Con, and argues that his failure to prove his case constitutes a win for Pro. While this might be justifiable, the voter does have to assess arguments from both sides to produce a sufficient RFD.
Posted by uniferous 10 months ago
You don't vote for what you think is ridiculous. You are supposed to vote on which side performed better in the debate. Not on a realistically speaking level since Pro didn't respond to me at all.
Posted by smelisox 10 months ago
Pro is wrong simply by the fact that he assumes the planets will keep their orbit. The Sun will not "consume" the planets, they'll just fly out in different directions.
Posted by hcps-perezsj 10 months ago
Posted by Themeaman909 10 months ago
I just voted
Posted by hcps-perezsj 10 months ago
Please vote on which side you agree with, though thank you for your support in the comments!
Posted by Themeaman909 10 months ago
The matrix movie? Seriously? This completely sounds ridiculous. Even if the Aliens where matrixing us, than how can it be proven. There is no proof, and thus cons argument makes no sense.
Posted by hcps-perezsj 10 months ago
By the way, I would add this but we ran out of debating room. If we never truly existed and are a hologram, then we are living our end, we are an end and a beginning. We have already ended if we were not to exist. But this theory is incorrect, I am only giving this example to show, no matter what theory is right, the solar system will end.
Posted by Aurigae54 10 months ago
Is this even a debate? Everything must end eventually. I'd be surprised if there was anyone who believed the solar system was eternal. After all, the Sun only has so much hydrogen to burn.
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
All is well here except the lack of a definition for the word "die." If someone were to come in and demonstrate that death only applies to living organisms, the solar system would not qualify for a living organism, and thus the resolution can be shredded apart.

Instead, include definitions for all of the terms in the resolution, and avoid jerks like me from ruining your debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 10 months ago
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: Well, unfortunately, this is pretty straightforward. Con's Kritik shows that we cannot possibly know that the solar system will ever come to an end because we cannot know the facts of the real world. At best, we can know the facts of the reality in which we exist, which may not be real, and therefore would not satisfy the resolution. Pro doesn't provide me with any satisfying reason to believe that this isn't an illusory world, and thus no reason to ignore Con's argument. As this is a fact debate, and as it's Pro's burden to prove the fact laid out by the resolution, his failure costs him the debate. As a side note, I'm not particularly thrilled with the practice of employing debate theory, particularly Kritiks, on new debaters. Con, you're hardly the first to do so, but it strikes me as a cheap tactic when these debaters don't know how to tackle such a technical argument.