The Instigator
frenchmoosetwo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valtarov
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

atomic butterflies exist on mars

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 7 votes the winner is...
Valtarov
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,523 times Debate No: 12385
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

frenchmoosetwo

Pro

I can almost gaurentee this through scientific facts and demonstrations,

Fruit loops are magicly delicious as well but this is complelely relevent yes.
Valtarov

Con

Thanks to frenchmoosetwo for the debate.

My opponent has not offered any definitions, so any definitions I provide are the only legitimate definitions in the round.

Atomic—existing in the state of separate atoms (Merriam-Webster's)
Butterflies—any of numerous slender-bodied diurnal lepidopteran insects including one superfamily (Papilionoidea) with broad often brightly colored wings and usually another superfamily comprising the skippers (Merriam-Webster's)
Exist—to have life or the functions of vitality (Merriam-Webster's)
On—used as a function word to indicate the object of collision, opposition, or hostile action (Merriam-Webster's)
Mars—the Roman god of war (Merriam-Webster's)

My opponent provided no definitions, so these definitions are the only definitions usable in the round.

My arguments:
The resolution is contradictory and arbitrary.

1) Butterflies cannot be atomic. A butterfly, according to biochemistry, is necessarily made up of molecules that are not in the state of separate atoms. Anything in the state of separate atoms i.e. unbonded and not molecular cannot be a butterfly.
2) Anything that is atomic cannot exist. According to biochemistry, anything that is in a free atomic state cannot be alive and/or have the functions of vitality.
3) It is quite impossible for something to exist on anything. Life and/or the functions of vitality cannot be in opposition to something, especially an archaic Roman god that is not proven to be.
4) The existence of said archaic god has not been proven. My opponent must prove that the Roman god Mars exists to have any chance to win the debate.

Rebuttals:
"I can almost gaurentee [sic] this through scientific facts and demonstrations."
First of all, you must prove that the resolution is true, not "almost guarantee" it. Secondly, a supernatural being like the Roman god Mars cannot be proven scientifically. Third, a demonstration of the resolution is intrinsically impossible, as I stated above.

"Fruit loops are magicly [sic] delicious as well but this is complelely [sic] relevent [sic] yes. [sic]"
Every claim made in this statement has not been proven and is furthermore completely irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 1
Valtarov

Con

An insulting video does not constitute a proof that the resolution is true. My opponent has failed to prove the resolution true, or even provide one bit of evidence that the resolution is true. Additionally, he has failed to respond both to my rebuttals of the two-sentence infantile rambling that made up his case, and the robust case against the resolution that I made. The Pro has been destroyed by the atomic bomb of clear, rational argumentation. His ad hominem attacks against me, as stated in his video, are obviously false with any logical reading of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
frenchmoosetwo

Pro

-I do have to admit.. the vid may have done better in this round...-

-My opponent states "Butterflies cannot be atomic. A butterfly, according to biochemistry, is necessarily made up of molecules that are not in the state of separate atoms. Anything in the state of separate atoms i.e. unbonded and not molecular cannot be a butterfly."-

-Just because the atoms are seperated does not mean they are not the atoms of a buttterfly, it only means that the atoms are scatterd but those atoms together would just show the full butterfly in a way we can see.-

-"Anything that is atomic cannot exist. According to biochemistry, anything that is in a free atomic state cannot be alive and/or have the functions of vitality."-

-So based on what your saying here.. Atoms.. and anything that is not alive.. do not exist? That is just insanity.-

-"It is quite impossible for something to exist on anything. Life and/or the functions of vitality cannot be in opposition to something, especially an archaic Roman god that is not proven to be."

-Since when did it become impossible for something to exist on something? we exist on earth.. roman gods cannot be proven to exist.. i dont see how useing a religious figure would disprove the fact that there could be atomic butterflies on mars.-

-"The existence of said archaic god has not been proven. My opponent must prove that the Roman god Mars exists to have any chance to win the debate."-

-The god mars never existed, i made this debate with the hopes that at least one person would have the logic to understand that when i spoke of mars i meant the one that truely exists in space, not some idea someone had in there head many years ago. Also i just have to say.. did you truely need to change definitions around to win this?-

-"Every claim made in this statement has not been proven and is furthermore completely irrelevant."-

-Are you rediculous?-

Now for round 2!

-"An insulting video does not constitute a proof that the resolution is true."-

-Yes it does!-

-"My opponent has failed to prove the resolution true, or even provide one bit of evidence that the resolution is true."-

-And you my fwend have shown no evidence to prove otherwise-

-"The Pro has been destroyed by the atomic bomb of clear"

-Acording to your logic.. atomic bombs dont exist-

-"are obviously false with any logical reading of the debate."-

->.>...<.
-yeeeaa.. O.o vote con RAWR-
Valtarov

Con

From the top:

-The video is only good for making you lose the conduct point.

-If the atoms of a butterfly were unbonded, chemically separate, etc., they'd be highly reactive dust, not a butterfly.

-Under the definition of "exist", which I provided in the first round, and which is the only definition presented in the round, to exist is to have life or the functions of vitality. It is not insanity but the definition of exist provided by the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

-"So based on what your saying here.. Atoms.. and anything that is not alive.. do not exist? That is just insanity."
No, it's not insanity. It is using the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Plus, it's the only valid definition in the debate, since my opponent has failed to provide a counter-definition. What I am saying is that, according to biochemistry, anything that is alive is made up of organic, bonded molecules. You can't have atomic (chemically unbonded) life. A helium atom is not alive; nor is a pile of carbon-hydrogen-oxygen goo that you get when you atomize a living thing. To clarify: atoms are, but they do not exist. Non-living things may be, but they do not exist under the legitimate and accepted definition of "exist".

-In the next point, my opponent seems to take issue with the definitions of "on", "exist", but these definitions still stand as he failed to provide definitions from a more legitimate source than Merriam-Webster's Dictionary or even any alternative definitions! Therefore, my definitions and thus my point stand.

-I concede that the resolution may indeed refer to the planet Mars, not the Roman deity. My definition is preferred, as it is the first entry in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, whereas his definition is unsourced. Even if Mars refers to the planet, my opponent has failed to provide evidence that self-contradictory, chemically unbonded life forms are there. My opponent claims that I changed the definitions of the words in the resolution. I have done no such thing; every definition is straight out of the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. My opponent has not even attempted to provide alternate definitions to any word in the resolution, so the valid definitions I provided are the only definitions suitable for the debate.

-I am not ridiculous; subjective claims about breakfast cereal that appeal to magic a hardly relevant to the debate.

-An insulting, ad-hominem video does not address any of my arguments, nor does it prove the existence of atomic butterflies on Mars.

-My opponent says that I have not proved the resolution false. Sadly for him, I don't have to prove it false. I just have to show that he hasn't proven it true. The burden of proof is always on the instigator, and especially on an instigator arguing the affirmative.

-I concede that atomic bombs to not exist. I will revise my statement to "The Pro has been destroyed by clear, rational argumentation."

Regardless of whose definitions, validly sourced or implied, are accepted, my opponent has still failed to provide evidence for his claim. Additionally, my arguments have clearly negated the possibility of the resolution.

As did my opponent/ally, I urge a vote for the negative.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
We try.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 6 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
This was defiantly one of the most entertaining debates I have seen for a while thanks guys you made me laugh
Posted by ANoobOwner 6 years ago
ANoobOwner
I am pretty sure that pro used references, but what I am more concerned about whether this topic had any sort of point, or rose some sort of moral quagmires, or at least was supposed to make me laugh?
Posted by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
What about Merriam-Webster's Dictionary? Does that not count as a reliable source?
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
No opening argument. Pro wasted time with a nonsense resolution and provided no case. Pro couldn't spell "guarantee." References not provided by either side.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Rhetorical-Disaster 6 years ago
Rhetorical-Disaster
frenchmoosetwoValtarovTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ProHobo 6 years ago
ProHobo
frenchmoosetwoValtarovTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 6 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
frenchmoosetwoValtarovTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by ANoobOwner 6 years ago
ANoobOwner
frenchmoosetwoValtarovTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
frenchmoosetwoValtarovTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
frenchmoosetwoValtarovTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
frenchmoosetwoValtarovTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00