Astrology accurately explains many things
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Definitions:
Astrology: the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world.
Resolution_CON=Astrology Does Not Explain Many Things Accurately
B_O_P=Shared
Definitions are vital to an argument.
- Astrology attempts to explain an infinity of events
- What is the condition for a thing to be “explained”?
- A verdict of whether this thing goes this way or that way(Yes, no, or something else)
- An explanation filling the inquiry and the verdict that can be convincing.
- Some things presented from Astrology are actual true events.
- Alternate universes exist and one accurate prediction by Astrology would be a large amount since alternate universes share similarities.
- A small percentage of the large picture can still be extremely large amounts.
- Alternate universes can have completely different properties of matter, so in one AU in which astrology would automatically lead to a true outcome would theoretically exist too, and that in itself constitutes for tremendous amounts of true explanations by Astrology.
- 29% of the people believe Astrology to be true, so it has believably accurate explanations.
- Overall, Astrology accurately explains a lot of things theoretically.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
[2]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/many
[3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indefinite
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
[5]https://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html
[6]https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-12-at-1.38.57-AM.png
[7]https://www.quora.com/How-has-astrology-changed-your-life
Astrology, upon its greatest capabilities, can certainly be used to predict the outcome of EVERY SINGLE event on Earth that could happen[4].
This would mean it attempts to explain extremely large amounts of events.
Due to alternate universes scientifically existing[5]
To explain something, you need these:
- A verdict of whether this thing goes this way or that way(Yes, no, or something else)
- An explanation filling the inquiry and the verdict that can be convincing.
According to data within these ten years, 29% of people consider astrology to be believable[6].
And, since this source[7] presents AT LEAST ONE true occasion in which Astrology explanations lead to true events, that would mean it would do for many, consider parallel universes branching every time unit, and that unit is much less than a second. If your predictions become true, then at the split second, millions of true occasions will accumulate into the cumulative record, thus this would mean that actually, astronomical numbers of true events are being verified by astrology.
Astrology: the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world.
- The requirement for something to be related to astrology is that:
- It requires at least one celestial body
- And it needs to have an influence on the natural world and human affairs
- Thus, all studies about the Earth would be owned by Astrology.
- These studies are science, which explains things accurately,
- Thus, studies of Planet Earth, which counts as a part of astrology, and are factually accurate and explain lots of things(many), would support my view:
- Astrology accurately explains many things.
Any terrestrial events caused by the movement and position of astronomical objects would be related to astrology, according to the very definition itself. That would mean, tide patterns(caused by the movement and positions of the sun and moon), seasons(caused by the Earth and the Sun), earthquakes(caused by the earth, which still IS a celestial body), and even asteroid attacks(caused by asteroids attacking the earth, which both are celestial bodies). Every geological and astronomical event is technically still caused by astrology because as long as the movement of celestial bodies causes changes in human civilizations, it is astrology working
In fact, to the definition itself, any reactions caused by the observations of celestial bodies COUNTS as astrology because it is the positions and movements of celestial bodies so it is visible, and it causes happiness to the observer, thus it is celestial bodies' movements having an influence on human affairs(a procedure of events, and in this case, said discoverer would gain popularity in the astronomy world, and it encourages others to discover astronomical objects...). It is the celestial bodies themselves that constitute astronomy, while what happens to our environment is dictated by astrology.
CON will kill PRO's case with a single result: This is a study by Department of Physics, UC Berkeley one of the most prestigious universities in the world.Quoting from the study (read if you are associated from STEM fields and have a rudimentary knowledge of statistics)" What is striking about these data is how poorly astrologers performed, when their performance is compared to their predicted rate.It is very consistent with chance,and is at a very significant 3.3 s.d. level below the astrologers prediction.This is well beyond the 2.5 s.d requirement we established before the beginning of the experiment as sufficient to refute astrological hypothesis.Before the data had been analysed, we decided to test to see if the astrologers could select the correct CPI profile as either their first or second choice at higher than expected rate. The scientific hypothesis predicts CPI will fall in the first or second choice 66% of the time. The astrologers did not make a specific prediction as to what they expected the rate to be.If the correct CPI is chosen in the first and second place choices, then they will be depleted from the third place choice. Since the rrate at which the astrologers chose the correct CPI as their third place choice was consistent with chance, we conclude that the astrologers were unable to chose the correct CPI as their first or second choice at a significant level. "S.d. =Standard deviation.CPI = California personality Index.(read if you are not associated with STEM fields and dont know statistics) : Basically the result meant, astrologers prediction is close to chance and that the study concluded that astrologers cannot predict anything and the possibility of their prediction coming true is consistent with a random chance.
Basically, this debate comes down to Pro's failiure to address Con's arguments in R1. Pro's R2 arguments moved the goalposts by changing the definition of astrology, and also went completely unsourced. Con failed to address any of this and instead entirely missed the point of Pro's args by claiming that astrology cannot explain individual events (when Pro's point was that Astrology explains events that happen as a whole). He also made an unnecessary point about astronomy and implied that it was mutually exclusive to astrology, when it was not. Pro's argument regarding fields of study was completely dropped by Con, too. In the end, though, the BOP was shared, and Pro failed to address Con's arguments (regarding the Berkeley study) altogether. This is a mistake that frankly can't be recovered from in most/all debates.
Both sides failed to source many claims that they make (and also failed to source a lot of definitions) and both had S&G mistakes, and so I feel like going any further there would be nitpicking.
Regarding conduct, Pro employed an unorthodox strategy of dropping his previous arguments and introducing new ones in the final round. I actually like it, and since Con had the opportunity to respond to Pro, I don't think it's bad conduct either.
Overall, this was a tough debate to read and analyze. I'd recommend that both debaters read their opponent's arguments carefully, source their claims, and have someone else read their args/run their args through Grammarly to ensure that they make sense. Both Intelligence_06 and Nikunj_sanghai are both truly voracious debaters and I wish them well in the future.
Argument: Pro presented an irrelevant factor in his debate: multiple universes with the transparent attempt to artificially bolster the argument of accuracy of astrologic prediction. The attempt failed. A cited 29% accuracy in not convincing. Further, for the second round, Pros shifted the argument to one of claiming that because astrology has relation to other disciplines, astrology "owns" or dominates those other disciplines. Such a claim requires evidence, or it remains a mere claim. Not a convincing argument. Conversely, Con presented a consistent rebuttal to Pro's claims, and succeeded. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro's first round had sources, but the linkage of them to argument content was vague and required scurtiny to find the references in the body of the text. Eventually found them, but it should have been easier to distinguish from the text. In the end, the only valid sources that did not present mere theory instead of facts were the dictionary definitions, and included one source that is clearly opinion and not scholastic [Quora]. Plus, in round 2, Pro abandoned offering sources, claiming lack of necessity. Con's sources supported his arguments consistently. Points to Con.
S&G: tie
Conduct: Pro's attitude re: sources lost the point. Point to Con
cool !
Yeah, I guess I should clarify. It's not bad conduct really for you to do it, but I wouldn't want any voter to be influenced by a comment you made rather than your arguments.
Ragnar is not voting so..........
Arguing your case in the comments is bad conduct.
I have already cited Department of Physics, UC Berkeley ,calling forth the top astrologers in US and found their prediction close to chance(natural random probability of an event happening to be true).
Probably does, even if related assumptions are wrong. However, I do not have enough time to properly read this and vote.
I'll give it a shot
will you guys vote?
bump
vote please!
I dont feel threatened though!
I came very preparedly. 2 pages of Google docs was written before this page can be viewed.
Do better than your gasoline debate.
Not gonna lie, I actually picked that question and made it into this. I, of course, picked "agree" since.... Well, if anyone accepts this, we'll see.
It's like that Political Compass question!
Oh is it? I think I can change my description so it can illustrate the issue more straightforward.
"I do not believe in astrology in myself, as contrary to female individuals in my age group."
" I can avoid being stereotyped in a way that I do not like and isn’t true."
I believe this is known as hypocrisy.