The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Meropenem777
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

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

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...
Meropenem777
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 313 times Debate No: 81253
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Meropenem777

Con

That is an indefinite statement.

The definition of seeing is not clearly specified, but as it is not specified I will use that in pointing out that it is possible how "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens".

To "see" can be defined as: "to perceive (things) mentally; discern; understand"(Dictionary.com).

To "perceive" can be defined as: "to recognize, discern, envision, or understand" (Dictionary.com)

To "envision" can be defined as: "to picture mentally, especially some future event or events" (Dictionary.com)

Therefore, in the possibility that the hypothetical blind man is hallucinating, a blind man can be a blind man seeing aliens. The statement that "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens" is false because it does not take this into account.

Sources utilized:

-http://dictionary.reference.com...

-http://dictionary.reference.com...

-http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

a blind man can believe
Meropenem777

Con

"A blind man can believe", is this your main argument? Well, that arguably does not refute my previous statements and is considerably an irrelevant notion.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

belief is unknown
Meropenem777

Con

"belief is unknown"??? Another considerably irrelevant notion.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

alien=unknown
Meropenem777

Con

The term "alien" is relevant to who/what a person thinks could be considered as an alien. Whether they mean illegal immigrants as aliens, aliens from outer space, or any other kind of meaning for the term, "alien". Therefore to say that "alien=unknown" (assuming this can be interpreted as "we do not know what aliens actually look like) is another irrelevant notion since it is up to the hypothetical person hallucinating to deem what they are seeing as aliens.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

a blind man cant see
Meropenem777

Con

In one of my first argument's sentences, I have accidentally stated this: "in pointing out that it is possible how "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens". That can seem like a mishap and self-contradictory for the way I phrase it, however, by acknowledging that is simply "possible", it can also be viewed how I am acknowledging that the opposite is true and therefore the statement: "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens" is still false because it is conclusive in what it states and does not mention how it is simply "possible".

"a blind man cant see" is a statement that is true for the most part but generally implying that in the context of this debate is irrelevant.

My arguments have considerably still not been refuted and so I urge the voters to take that into account.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
All hail the mighty vi_spex.
Posted by Meropenem777 1 year ago
Meropenem777
I just noticed a slight mishap in one of the phrasing of my sentences, but will demonstrate how it is arguably coherent to what I am saying.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
vi_spexMeropenem777Tied
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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Con. Pro did not utilize proper grammar and capitalization throughout the entire debate. *I know you don't care vi_spex, but a little effort in this department isn't THAT much of a burden.* Arguments - Con. Clearly Pro presented an incomprehensible argument for a contradictory resolution. Unfortunately for Con, being new to the site and all, he attempted to have a serious debate with Pro which is 99.9999999994% unlikely to happen. However, being that he did present a valid rebuttal against Pro's position in the debate, and Pro failed to adequately recover, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Con did use sources for definition purposes, but there were no sources utilized for argument impact. Personal note to Con - steer clear of vi_spex if trying to debate seriously. He's wildly entertaining to follow, but not the most serious here on DDO in terms of debating. (love you vi_spex)