The Instigator
Wumbology
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Wumbology is valid science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 8 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 22,731 times Debate No: 27668
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

Wumbology

Pro

I am undefeated.
DakotaKrafick

Con

I accept, but since you didn't bother actually defining "Wumbology" or anything else, I'll do so now:

Wumbology: The study of all things Wumbo.
Wumbo: "The opposite of Mini". Direct definition from Spongebob Squarepants, season 3, episode 1, "Mermaidman and Barnacleboy IV": I wumbo. You wumbo. He- she- me... wumbo. Wumbo; Wumboing; We'll have thee wumbo; Wumborama; Wumbology; the study of Wumbo. It's first grade, Spongebob! [1]
Valid: having some foundation; based on truth [2]
Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. [3]

Now, considering "Wumbology" is just a fictional word made up by a fictional starfish, I think my opponent will have a tough time explaining how it in any way should be deemed as "valid science".

Man, I must be bored...

Sources:
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Wumbology

Pro

I will begin by saying "I will begin by saying".
I will begin by saying that this matter can be very easily solved logically.

As my opponent has stated, Wumbo is "The opposite of mini".
The: used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance.
Opposite: Having a position on the other or further side of something.
Of: used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation.
Mini: Denoting a miniature version of something.

Now according to an unbiased source, antonyms of mini include: big, giant and, large. http://thesaurus.com...

Recent breakthroughs in Cetacean Zoology suggest that whales are big.

Logical Proof:
I. Scientists study whales
II. Whales are big
III. Big is the opposite of mini
IV. The opposite of mini is Wumbo
V. By the transitive property, scientists study Wumbo.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Reminds me of Monty Python's "is she a witch" argument:

P1: Witches burn.
P2: Wood burns.
P3: Wood floats.
P4: Ducks float.
C: If one weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch.

Anyway... let's take a look at my opponent's argument:

P1: Scientists study whales.
P2: Whales are big.
P3: Big is the opposite of mini.
P4: The opposite of mini is Wumbo.
C: By the transitive property, scientists study Wumbo.

What do these arguments have in common? They're both talking about fictional things, witches and Wumbology. The definitions of "Wumbology" and "Wumbo" exist only in the Spongebob Squarepants universe, not in any credible dictionary, so my opponent's fourth premise has no merit in the real world.

It should read "The opposite of mini is Wumbo according to Patrick Starfish". And what does that prove? Nothing, unless we include a premise "Everything Patrick Starfish says on TV is actually true" and agree with it for some reason, which we wouldn't.

My opponent needs actual evidence that Wumbology is more than just a fictional science. Otherwise, the resolution has not been proven.
Debate Round No. 2
Wumbology

Pro

It is evident that my opponent has either missed the first grade or is being purposely deceitful.

This "Spongebob Universe" exists within ur own universe...which exists.
We also have hours and hours of footage from this world in the archives of Nickelodeon.

Now based upon numerous displays of unusual power by Patrick, we must look closelty to figure out what is going on.
Patrick, in the episode "Patrick Smartpants", falls off of a cliff and loses his head. By the end of the same episode he is back to normal.
In the episode "The Sponge Who Could Fly", Spongebob flies with his inflated pants. Patrick, on the other hand, can fly without need for any such help.
In the episode "Chocolate With Nuts", Patrick says to a stranger, "I love you".

We can assume because of these, and many more, supernatural abilities that Patrick:
A) Has been resurrected
B) Is omnipotent
C) Is omnibenelovent
Since all of the above are attributes of God we can safely make the assumption that Patrick is God.
If Patrick is God then he would have spoken Wumbology into existence, therefore causing it to exist.
DakotaKrafick

Con

I admit, I took a test to skip the first grade, but there were certainly no questions about "Wumbology" on it. Geography, maybe, but not Wumbology.

My opponent asserts the Spongebob universe is a part of the real world that we live in, but provides no evidence for this. As an alternative, much more likely theory, I propose that Spongebob Squarepants is nothing more than a fictional cartoon. Whether or not I can prove this is irrelevant, because the burden of proof here is not on me. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove Spongebob and Patrick are real creatures but he has simply not done this.

My opponent tries to claim Patrick is a god by wrongly attributing a few properties to him. He says because Patrick can fly without the aid of wings or overly inflated pants, he must be omnipotent, but this doesn't even logically follow! Just because one has the ability to do one thing (ie, fly) does not mean he/she has the ability to do all things.

And need I remind him, and the audience, that in "Chocolate with Nuts" Patrick only said "I love you" to a complete stranger because he was trying to butter him up so he would buy some of the chocolate he was going door to door selling? This clearly proves that Patrick is a deceitful, sociopathic creature who uses people by lying about being in love with them just to make some cash. Can we really trust such a starfish's promise about the existence of "Wumbology", especially when it's unsupported by literally every dictionary on the planet?

The defense rests.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thatoneoutcast 2 months ago
Thatoneoutcast
Fictional TV shows are fiction. I ask,how old are you Wumbology? I ask this because you misspelled some words by either adding or "forgetting" a letter and that makes me wonder. Do you even pay attention to how you write things? You don't give evidence as to why Wumbology is a valid science at first,then, you make a point that is essentially the fake but comical X is Illuminati confirmed where X represents basically anything that exists. Also in the guide for what Spongebob contains (from DirecTV) it says, that this show is not recommended for young children that cannot separate fantasy from reality. Does that description match anyone here? Yes it does and it fits you Wumbology. You seem like you cannot separate fantasy (or fiction) from reality. If you are a little kid,I recommend you stay away from the internet, for both our sakes. It will benefit me because I don't have to come across your stupidity and it will benefit you because it means that you will not see anything that is bad and completely stupid in the internet. I don't know where you are or how you were raised,but just saying "I am undefeated" does not prove anything. It is like saying,"I am a ghost just because" or "Pokemon is real because there are movies." No. Stop. Please accept that you are wrong and do not make any more arguments like this. Goodbye.
Posted by ancientRome4793 8 months ago
ancientRome4793
the word wumbo did come from a cartoon your right about that but it is technically still a word even though it is made up. Also when you think about it wumbology can be an actual science it just depends on if there is a type of study for big things. You see if wumbo is the opposite of mini then it still is a word it might be made up but it's still a word. it's a antonym. plus people make up words all the time for ex sample like selfie.selfie wasn't an actual word until 2013 then every one started using it.If you put a bunch of letters together it won't automatically be a word it would have to mean something. Wumbo mean big or it can be a contraction of the words jumbo and waddle so it can be the word for when big people or animals waddle when they walk. or it can be wonder and jumbo or whatever.so in other words I guess i'm saying that wumbo is a homonym or a homograph.but since we're talking about the opposite of mini whether or not there is a study for it then there really isn't a study for wumbo because like I said it depends on if there is a study or science of big thing which there isn't.You would have to be more specific because there is a lot of big things in the world so it would have to be a certain thing.so in conclusion even though the study of wumbo isn't real the word itself is so until there is a study of big things in general then wumbology is not a valid science
Posted by LetsDoThis 3 years ago
LetsDoThis
This debate made me piss blood.
Posted by Wumbology 4 years ago
Wumbology
Next time i won't take bribes
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Better luck next time, Mr. "Undefeated".
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
I really don't think a lot of people gave this a fair analysis.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
You are both correct, and incorrect toolpot. Wumbo means something in English; it means whatever we choose to make it mean. you could say Wumbo means "feces", and that would be just as valid and true as me saying it means "big", as words are whatever we choose to make them mean.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Chaos - though you are correct about words, Wumbo does not mean anything in English, or presumably in any other language, outside of Patrick's likely incorrect description in a fictional universe. I could just as easily say that Wumbo means feces. Is this correct? And that the creators of Spongebob likely coined the word does not make it real either. I could say that fliggleditty means feces, and would be no more correct. It has no meaning in the English speaking world.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
Dakota, it is not wrong that something need not be listed in a dictionary t be considered a word. Words are merely sounds. Sounds we project meaning onto. Any sound can hold any meaning, at any given time.

I mean, truly consider what you say by claiming words need to be listed in a dictionary. Think of all the time that occurred before written language. Were these humans not speaking words, merely because they could not write them down and compile them in some subjective book called a "dictionary"? Of course not.
Posted by Wumbology 4 years ago
Wumbology
I have to admit you had some wumbo balls entering this debate. Too bad your IQ was set to mini.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter fallacious and abusive votes.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: smh
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Sponge Bob is not real.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because this debate is in the religious section, giving this debate a religious context. Con made no religious arguments, whereas Pro did. Arguments go to Pro because the primary basis of Con's argument is that Wumbology has no legitimate definition, despite that Con specifically attributed a definition to it in the first round. In light of this, Pro has substantiated his burden because, unlike how Con implied, his proof is not a non-sequitur, though it is highly semantical.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument that wumbology is a valid science rests on the claim that scientists do study big things. However there is not a science designated just to the study of big things, and if there is it certainly isnt called or known as wumbology, so I give arguments to the con. I did like the pro's humor though so I gave him a conduct point just for the hell of it.............. Not very good arguments, but the debate was entertaining and truly unique so I give it 2 ot of 4 stars
Vote Placed by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Clearly the same humorously fallacious logic Pro uses in his argument is the same that accounts for his claim of being "undefeated."
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
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 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: PRO's demeanor was unprofessional, which accounts for the conduct vote. IF Patrick is god, he is god only in the universe of SBSP and only in that one episode, not in "reality". Therefore, everything Patrick Starfish says on TV is NOT actually true outside the fictional reality of this one episode of SBSP. Also, Wumbo only has meaning in the fictional reality of the one episode sourced by CON. It has no other meaning outside this one episode. CON's source specifically cites the episode where Wumbo would have any meaning. CON also sourced and presented the initial argument, accounting for the "most reliable sources" vote. I must be bored too. BTW, I don't watch SBSP.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
WumbologyDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to realize that any set of sounds people give meaning to are "real words", therefore, Wumbo need not be listed in a dictionary to be considere a word. Given that, if someone chooses to say "Wumbo means big", and if it is true that scientists study large things, then it is consequently true that Wumbology could be a valid science.