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

rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

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: 8/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 455 times Debate No: 94658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Regardless if a person is colorblind, the light spectrum still exists. In fact, the light spectrum has existed before our species even walked the earth.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


heat of fire might be a proof of necessary light, heat of a fire dosnt prove there is a rain bow in the sky


"heat of fire might be a proof of necessary light, heat of a fire dosnt prove there is a rain bow in the sky"

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.
Debate Round No. 2


so when is it true for a man born blind, to say, there is a rainbow in the sky


"so when is it true for a man born blind, to say, there is a rainbow in the sky."

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."
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
guess leprechauns like gold ahahahah
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
a leprechaun killed him on the way, and only a single peace of gold was found on him
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
and took it home to tell about it
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
a blind man once found the gold at the end of a rainbow
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Because someone was born blind, the visible light spectrum doesn't exist?
Come on.
You're not going to qualify that with "doesn't exist TO the blind person?"
You're better than that vi_spex.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KthulhuHimself 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
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.