The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Does Australia exist?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,461 times Debate No: 72989
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (1)




Does Australia exist?

I'd like to thank my opponent, Clashnboom, for accepting this debate.

Australia definition: "Continent of the eastern hemisphere SE of Asia & S of the equator area2,948,366 square miles (7,665,751 square kilometers)"

Exist definition: "To have actual being : to be real"

Full Resolution: "The continent known as Australia exists"

Please do not go into semantics with the definitions, like claiming it exists in ones mind. We are talking about whether the continent is real or not in objective reality.

Rules (Made by bsh1 and edited slightly):
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or semantics
6. No K's of the topic
7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions
8. The BOP is shared
9. Both debaters must follow this format:
R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments (No rebuttals)
R3: Rebuttals and arguments
R4: Conclusions (No new arguments or rebuttals in this round)
10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire forfeit of the debate

Thank you and good luck.


I accept but please know that I suck at spelling and grammar and that I am but a noob.

What does no K's of the topic and the BOP is shared mean? (I told you I was a noob.)
when you said "My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions" does that mean I can't provide any definitions?
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting.

Currently no evidence exists to prove that Australia is real. My rounds will be mostly rebuttals, so I eagerly await my opponent's main arguments. My argument will essentially go like this:

P1: If there is no good evidence for a claim, it probably doesn't exist

P2: There is no good evidence for Australia

Conclusion: Therefore, Australia probably doesn't exist.

P1: This is just using logic. If there is no evidence for unicorns, we would believe they probably do not exist. Same goes for fairies, Bigfoot, etc... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. Australia is definitely an extraordinary claim, and thus must have evidence for it in order for people who reasonably believe it.

P2: This will be determined by what my opponent brings to the table in terms of arguments. Essentially, if I can't rebut the evidence or show why it's faulty then I'll concede this point.

The conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Thanks for reading, good luck!


I am unable to post my arguments right now for I am on a vacation and only have access to my phone which cannot post pictures therefore I shall forfeit but I ask con to please make round four rebuttals and arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


As per the rules, voters should give me conduct points for Pro's forfeiture.

I cannot change the rules as they directly say that we *must* flow that format. In addition, it would be unfair if Pro were allowed to post his arguments in the final round then rebut mine as then I would not have a chance to rebut his. This gives him an extra round of rebuttals which I do not receive, giving him an unfair advantage. If Pro thought he wouldn't be able to post anything in this debate until round 4 then he should not have accepted it.

Remember: If pro posts *any* arguments in the final round he has severely violated the rules and it should lead to a full forfeit. My opponent can put arguments and rebuttals in his next round though (As the rules say.)

I extend all (uncontested) arguments.


1. Photographic evidence.
There are multiple pictures of Australia as seen below.

2. Maps.
There are alot of detailed maps of Australia drown as seen below. Meaning it is hard for all that to just be an imagination of someone.

5. Witnesses.
There are about 23,586,200 people currently in Australia and about 4,562,179 in New Zealand.
Debate Round No. 3


Arcanas forfeited this round.


Conclusion: Since there are good evidences for Australia and since my opponent rebutted nothing I conclude I am right.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by really12 3 years ago
I bet America won't exist soon, their martial law, capital punishment, and nuclear arms will be their downfall.
Posted by ClashnBoom 3 years ago
I knew that was going to be his main source.
Posted by RXR 3 years ago
Big win for clashnboom.
Posted by Arcanas 3 years ago
Lol no. I'm going to heavily rebut your arguments next round... They aren't very good/reliable. Your arguments are uncontested just because up until the final round I didn't have a chance to respond lol...
Posted by ClashnBoom 3 years ago
That leaves all my arguments uncontested but yours was since your only evidence was that there wasn't good proof but I proved it wrong thus I get win it also helps that I'm the only one that had sources.
Posted by ClashnBoom 3 years ago
3 not 5 sorry.
Posted by LethargicLogic 3 years ago
@really12, I think you are confused. I live in Australia. Also I disagree on the quality of our government, a few good points is no redemption for the shadow cast over us by more liberated European countries.
Posted by really12 3 years ago
I meant gun control, we have that, its a good thing.
Posted by really12 3 years ago

No, I am not a conspiracy nut, we don't have those in Australia, we don't have the death penalty either nor nuclear arms, we don't believe in violence. We're a good country, we also have fun control too and we don't have conspiracies, we have a good government.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
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's sole argument was that there is no evidence for the existence of Australia; Pro refuted it by presenting satellite imagery of Australia, proving its objective existence as a geographic island, continent and nation. Conduct is tied because both sides forfeited. Pro used the only sources.