rainbows dont exist to a person born blind
Debate Rounds (3)
Even if a blind person subjectively cannot experience color, he/she can refer to scientific findings as evidence of the light spectrum.
Also, these now exist for people born blind:
That's right, folks. Colorblind peeps can now experience color.
I never claimed "heat of fire" proves there is a rainbow in the sky.
Refracted light proves that there is a rainbow in the sky (which is in our spectrum of light, which I have proven earlier), weather you are colorblind or not. I'm not a scientist, but here is something that will show you:
Refracted light is merely when the behavior of light is met by a new medium that changes the behavior of light.
Refracted light isn't merely limited to rainbows.
Fiber Optics also refract light, which pretty much powers most peoples' internet connections----connections that even colorblind people use.
Ever get hit by a light on a mirror? Refracted light.
Also, your argument doesn't prove rainbows don't exist to a person born blind. Therefore, I don't think you win this round.
If it is raining and it is daytime, then it is factually correct for him to say it, weather he can see it or not. Like I said, refracted light exist regardless if we do or not.
We all are blind to Ultra Violet rays, but we definitely know they exist.
Therefore, and to the contrary, it is accurate and true for a blind man to say, "rainbows exist."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KthulhuHimself 2 months 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's punctuation is vapid and lacking, whilst con's punctuation is just fine; hence points for grammar go to con. During the entire debate, the instigator does not even address the contenders arguments; and since the contender meets the BoP requirements (mostly by explaining that the rainbow's existence is objective and irrelevant to the perception of a person), points for most convincing argument go to Con. Because the only one citing sources is the contender; and all sources cited by him are of reliable origin (such as educational sites, etc.); points for sources go to Con as well.
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.