The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

It's reasonable to believe in magic

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
anaklusmos has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 973 times Debate No: 104977
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Recently I've been seeing advertisements about magic on this site. So I decided to make this debate, to see if anyone would defend the notion that magic exists.


Magic; the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

Exist; to have real being whether material or spiritual, in this world


1) The Burden of Proof will be mainly on Pro to show magic likely exists, but I'll also bring a few arguments that show it probably doesn't.
2) We won't be arguing whether magic exists in media (like video games or TV), but whether it exists in this world. Also, science doesn't count as magic.
3) It's preferred to have sources alongside your arguments, but they can and will be open to critique by the opposing side.
4) Make sure you're willing to participate until the end. If you don't have time or aren't willing to post an argument in a round, type anything. A bluff, "anything", or along the lines of "I'm passing this round".

(If there's anything you'd like added to this debate, say so in the comments before accepting.)

I'm arguing that magic doesn't, or at least can't be shown to, exist in this world.


Magic is present throughout much of history. Many have had accounts of magic such as the men of the Bible accounting, "Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.[b]

7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him." This demonstrates thatJohn specifically witnessed this form of magic as one may call it along with all of the guests at the wedding.

It could be argued that the Bible is a work of fiction. This I counter via this. "In truth, the Bible gets things historically correct..."
As stated by Bible Odyssey. This quote has been slightly abridged and I sadly do not have the time to read the entire article so I leave you with this link and my ration.
Debate Round No. 1


I'll begin by posting my arguments against magic, then refuting my opponent's opening argument.


1) Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Here's a source,;.

For example, when you eat an apple, it goes through several physical and chemical changes through your body, but the mass and energy contained in the apple still exists. The energy goes into your body, and whatever's left goes in the toilet. You can't create matter, it has to come from somewhere. There also hasn't been any way to remove mass from existence either.

2) We haven't seen real magic.

Ever been to a magic show? It seems like they're really turning doves into swans and making things disappear, but in reality, they're tricks. For example, when they use smoke, they use it to hide coming out/in trap doors. They also use mirrors and various other tools.

You should check out the Masked Magician, who exposes many magic tricks. Here's a video where he shows how to survive a spike trap:


Of course, my opponent uses a biblical story to prove magic. There's a few concerns regarding this approach:

1) If Jesus really could walk on water, how come I haven't seen this outside of the Masked Magician's video (which he uses fiberglass as platforms), and cartoons? To my knowledge, biblical feats haven't been able to be replicated, even by loyal theists.

2) Can Jesus's feats be proven to happen? My opponent's source even states "we can’t verify that Jesus performed miracles, or that he is the Son of God—these are theological ideas, not historical statements." [Third paragraph, opponent's presented link]

3) The bible isn't accurate 100% of the time. Paragraph 6 in my opponent's source goes on about some inaccuracies, such as whether Herod was present and whether Mary could be pregnant. This puts the bible's historical accuracy into question.


The Bible may have no historical accounts of it's listed actions of Jesus but an art that has been practiced for millennia and has many historical accounts is alchemy. Alchemy has been accounted throughout history by notable persons and civilizations from as early as ancient Egypt to the present. I don't have much time at the moment so I leave you with this link and a question. Are these accounts of alchemy explainable by any form of science whatsoever?
Debate Round No. 2


Real quick, I'd like to say something to anaklusmos. There are 3 days to post an argument, so there's no rush. Just take what time you do have to consider what your sources say.

Cross Examination:

Moving to alchemy. What is alchemy? Merriam Webster defines it as "a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life". []

The link you gave me was pretty big, and you haven't pointed to any specifics, so I can't really say you did a good job of using a source. Instead of just giving me a link, tell me what the link says, and how this affects your argument. Though I should've probably quoted my first argument myself.

Moving on, I'll answer my opponent's question. "Are these accounts of alchemy explainable by any form of science whatsoever?" I Ctrl+F'd "gold" so I could pinpoint alchemy's well known transmutating metals into gold. You can find many accounts (fun fact: "gold" appears 43 times in the article) of such.

So is it scientifically possible to transform a metal (specifically lead) into gold? Actually, yes! However, the process I found is pretty difficult. To quote ScientificAmerican, the source I'm using:

"It is indeed possible—all you need is a particle accelerator, a vast supply of energy and an extremely low expectation of how much gold you will end up with. More than 30 years ago nuclear scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California succeeded in producing very small amounts of gold from bismuth, a metallic element adjacent to lead on the periodic table."

I'm not sure how the guys in the fourteenth century pulled off 50,000 pounds of gold, though. I want to lean towards him already having the gold beforehand, though I really can't say for sure. This topic's definitely interesting and worth researching. Another question that rises is; Is alchemy magic?

While it seems like magic, and might be considered by some to be magic, alchemy is really a form of chemistry, though definitely fascinating.


I'm passing this round and I did rush leading to a very incomplete argument.
Debate Round No. 3


Proving magic exists is an incredibly difficult task, which is why many ads concerning magical cures or spells are often passed off (and proably are) scams.

I'll summarize my points as to why people, including myself, believe magic to be fake:

1) Magicians often use tricks in their magic. Whether it's a hidden compartment, fake weapons, or sleight of hand, I can probably guess what a magician's secrets are.

2) It's near impossible to actually prove magic. A video can be dismissed as editing or a trick. We also can't prove Jesus did such as we only have text. (Proving the bible is accurate is a debate in itself, but it has contradictions and implausibilities. Not to mention the circular "Believe the bible because it was made by God. I know this because the bible says so.")

3) Alchemy's the closest you could get, but it's still closely tied to chemistry and science. It's up for debate whether alchemy would count, but as it relies more on chemicals over spells, it's a science.

So I think it's time to vote Con; me.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RobloxLove6969 3 years ago
how else would roblox be made. reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 4 years ago
@PowerPikachu21 check out this debate:
Posted by PowerPikachu21 4 years ago
Hasn't been on for the last 24 hours. I hope he remembers this site exists, and the debate.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 4 years ago
Alright. Just try to find evidence that supports your side (and take a few minutes to read sources), and keep in mind ways to counter the opposing side.
Posted by anaklusmos 4 years ago
Please note that I am very inexperienced and may make one or many amateur mistakes. Thank you.
Posted by SimonSmasher 4 years ago
I'd love to see someone try and argue this one haha
Posted by NDECD1441 4 years ago
Almost all the accs that one person has made got banned. Im not sure if the spammer will create a new account and debate this. Good luck PowerPikachu!
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.