a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
"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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year 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||4|
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)
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.