The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
adrianbgo
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
adrianbgo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 449 times Debate No: 81245
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

adrianbgo

Con

I accept your challenge on a simple premise: to see something does not always require sight. Operating under the assumption that aliens exist, and are visible entities, does not mean that they can't be seen by the blind. From a neurological perspective, sight is subjective, as when a blind man reads braille, or touches something to get a sense of his surroundings. Take, for example, the case of Daniel Kish, a blind man who has trained himself to see in detail using echolocation, and in fact, the optic cortex lights up in response to his self-learned echolocation (http://edition.cnn.com...). There is nothing to say that a blind man cannot touch an alien, or echolocate an alien, and be able to see it.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

blind=unable to see

okay a blind man can not see an alien with his eyes
adrianbgo

Con

The definition of blind is being unable to see visually. But there are numerous people who can see without any sort of visual stimuli, not just the one I mentioned. The man I previously mentioned actually teaches classes on using basic echolocation to see the world around you without eyes. This is a more complex example of this. Another is when a blind man is able to see various contours in a face with his hands. All of these are examples of sight, albeit without the aid of the eyes and optic nerve.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adrianbgo 1 year ago
adrianbgo
@ Meropenem777

I like how you addressed it. And thanks for the tip! I guess we took two totally different angles on it, though. It appears you did a semantic breakdown, where I used a neurological analysis. In my opinion, I like yours better, but mine was still pretty valid.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i agree with that

c=see
cold=feel old
Posted by Meropenem777 1 year ago
Meropenem777
@ adrianbgo

Look how i handled this debate topic. I think it might be a better argument and clearer than the method of input you created for this debate topic. No hard feelings, just saying.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by adrianbgo 1 year ago
adrianbgo
I don't, however, that is a normal response for a blind man. I have friends who are blind. They see with their hands.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
"f i say look over there to you, do you close your eyes and start grabbing away at things?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
a blind man cant see
Posted by adrianbgo 1 year ago
adrianbgo
You never specified in the prompt how the blind man saw the alien
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
not with his eyes...
Posted by adrianbgo 1 year ago
adrianbgo
I understand why you refer, and you make a lot of sense, but even without eyes, a blind man can still see
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i am talking about your physical eyes.. why do you think i refer to a blind mand..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 1 year ago
Zanomi3
vi_spexadrianbgoTied
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 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: Conduct remained the same for both throughout this short debate. Spelling and grammar falls towards Con, as well as convincing arguments. Con clearly stated in the first round that seeing does not always require sight. This went without rebuttal from Pro, and was basically the only argument that was made. Nobody used sources so points remain even in that category.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
vi_spexadrianbgoTied
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 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: Pro was unclear with his language, and con was clear. Pro also didn't really have an argument other than "blind men can't see" but con provided that blind men can see in ways other than visually (with sound and touch). Therefore con wins on arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
vi_spexadrianbgoTied
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: Con provided sources showing that blind people can 'see' objects through echo-location, meaning that a blind man can indeed possibly see an alien, which defeats pro's argument. Arguments go to con, sources go to con as well for that reason