Will the Solar System ever come to an end?
Debate Rounds (3)
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. 
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." 
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." 
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." 
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.
-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 . 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 
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 . 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!
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.