Instigator / Pro
3
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#2982
The best theory available for the loch ness monster is that it was probably a worm
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
6
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Description
In this debate I require to defend my position in the title that the best theory available for the loch ness monster is that it was probably a worm.
My opponent in this round will need to establish to the voters beyond reasonable doubt that this is not the best theory available.
What constitutes best theory and reasonable doubt comes down to the discretion of the voters.
Also, I will not be accepting arguments over absurd definitions.
If one does not understand the definition in the title, please take it up in the comment section before accepting the debate.
Failure to do so results in an automatic win for me, without me even taking part in the debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Congal Clairingnech
Now, given that the loch ness monster is "Scottish folklore", then you would not expect to find the most likely truth for the loch ness monster in Irish mythology, would you?
But that is possibly where the roots for the legend lie.
It likely begins with Congal Clairingnech who calls upon allies from Alba (Scotland) to come to Ulster and help fight a war.
This would likely include people from loch ness.
Congal Cláiringnech ("the cripple"),[1] son of Rudraige, was, according to medieval Irish legend and historical tradition, a king of Ulster and High King of Ireland. He was the brother of Bresal Bó-Díbad, the former High King, who had been killed by Lugaid Luaigne.While Lugaid Luaigne was High King of Ireland, Congall shared the kingship of Ulster with Fergus mac Léti, ruling the northern half of the province while Fergus ruled the southern half. The Ulstermen objected to being ruled by two kings, and both submitted to the judgement of the High King at Tara as to which should rule the province. Lugaid decided to give the kingship to Fergus, who his daughter Findabair had fallen in love with, and compensate Congal with land, status and gold, but Congal refused and declared war. He was supported by some of the Ulster noblemen, including Fergus mac Róich and Bricriu, as well as allies from the other Irish provinces and from Scotland. Fergus mac Léti also called upon his allies, including Fachtna Fáthach from Ulster, Cet mac Mágach from Connacht and Mesgegra from Leinster, and there were great losses on both sides.
135-120 BC
The year is supposed to be between 135-120 BC, according to Geoffrey Keating.
Nessa:
Now this brings me to Nessa.
Nessa is a princess that becomes a Mother to Conchobar Mac Nessa.
Ness (Irish: Neasa, Nessa; Old Irish: Neas, Ness), also called Nessa, is a princess of the Ulaid and the mother of Conchobar mac Nessa in the Ulster Cycle of Irish mythology. Her father is Eochaid Sálbuide, king of the Ulaid.
Cathbad:
However, who the father of Conchobar Mac Nessa is, is not known.
It could be Cathbad.
According to one version of the legend, she asks the druid Cathbad what that day is a good day for, and he replies that it is a good day to conceive a king. There are no other men around, so Ness takes Cathbad to bed, and Conchobar is conceived.[1]
Twelve foster fathers:
However it could also be any one of twelve foster fathers, that her father Eochaid Salbuide has allowed her to be brought up by.
In other versions,[2][3], Ness was brought up by twelve foster-fathers, and was originally called Assa ("easy, gentle"), because she was such a pleasure to foster. Cathbad, who is a leader of a band of fianna (landless warriors) as well as a druid in this version, attacks her foster-fathers' house, killing them all. Because the culprit cannot be identified, Eochaid is powerless to do anything about it
Fachtna Fathach:
Some say the father was Fachtna Fathach, high king of Ireland.
Here, the father of her child is said to be Fachtna Fáthach, the High King of Ireland, who is Ness's lover in spite of Cathbad.
Two worms:
Now there is a myth that these people used to make make girls drink water from a river and swallow two worms, and apparently swallowing the worms made them pregnant.
Ness was also made to drink a glass of water containing two worms.
Eochaid gives the couple land in Crích Rois (a region covering parts of the modern counties of Louth, Monaghan and Meath), near the river Conchobar. One night Cathbad is thirsty, and Ness brings him a drink of water from the river, but when he sees two worms floating in it he makes Ness drink it. Although the story specifically denies this is what makes her pregnant, there are many Irish stories in which significant characters are conceived when their mothers swallowed a tiny creature in a drink.
The son of a worm pulled out of the river conchobar:
Conchobar, who is apparently the son of a worm, if you read between the lines and you believe the Irish myth, was pulled out of a river which became known as the river conchobar, and conchobar's surname just so happens to be Ness.
Ness sits on a flagstone by the river Conchobar, and the following morning gives birth. The baby falls into the river, but Cathbad lifts him out, names him Conchobar after the river, and brings him up as his own son.[3]
Scottish alliance
Of course, being from Ulster Conchobar is allied with the Scots, and given his surname he is descended from the Scots that arrived in Ulster to help Comgal Claringnech whom was king of Ulster. (see beginning of this post)
After the Táin, Conchobar falls ill and doesn't eat or sleep. The Ulaid ask Cathbad to find out what's wrong with their king. Conchobar tells Cathbad that he is ill because the other four provinces of Ireland have made war against him with impunity. Although he was victorious against Ailill and Medb, neither of them was killed in the battle, and he still lost his bull. He wants to make war against Connacht, but it is now winter, so Cathbad advises him to wait until summer when his men and horses will be fresh and energetic, and in the meantime, call on all his foreign allies to bring reinforcements. He sends word to Conall Cernach, who is raising tribute in the Scottish islands, and he raises a great fleet of the Ulaid's allies in Scandinavia and the Faroe Islands and brings them home to Ulster.
Summary:
So, the loch ness monster was likely a worm.
And the real monsters were likely child molesters
And according to "ancient" tradition, her real father was actually Cathbad.
Cathbad was also the real father of Conchobar Mac Nessa, not the worm.
The person who Ness originally thought was her father was probably just another child abuser.
Now this may "not" be how the legend of the loch ness monster began, however it is probably the best theory there is. With that being that it is a Hiberno-Scots Euhemerism taken straight from Irish mythology.
Con
#2
This is how big the biggest earthworms in UK are:
UK doesn't have massive worms, actually the biggest thing that goes by 'worm' in UK (excluding freak cases of parastic worms in the body that grew big) is a snake:
These not only don't go in water much at all (though they both can be in the soil nearby), there is no way that you can suggest that is what the legend is based on, since the origins is further back than this:
local stone carvings by the Pict depict a mysterious beast with flippers. The first written account appears in a biography of St. Columba from 565 AD.
So, while it's crystal clear what my opponent is trying to do here, it's frankly insulting to all proud Scots to suggest they nabbed their folklore legend from the Irish, since Princess Ness was alive after the legend of the Loch Ness monster had already begun to surface, as evidenced by records of sightings.
Since it dates so far back, it's possible that some kind of dinosaur remnant that has since gone extinct was genuinely in the waters, the most likely relative (or creature itself) was this:
^ Different animals same 'branch' or 'tree' of the dinosaur evolutionary kingdom.
If either had somehow survived the apocalypse of dinosaurs (which water-dwelling creatures are known to have done better than land-dwelling, hence we still have crocodiles, snakes and turtles as well as deep-sea creatures that are similar to their ancient ancestors), it's remotely possible that somehow a family tree of them had remained early on in Scotland's development back when the Celts were the inhabitants (in Scotland it was evenly split by both Pict Celts and Gaelic Celts, unlike in Ireland where it was predominantly Gaelic Celts and other subsets).
Also, that legend in Ireland was actually potentially 'stolen' from Iceland.
Ohhhhh conspiracyyyyyy
As for the images, the only images that don't seem heavily photoshopped, involve a dark night or early-morning image of what appears to be a swan, this is supposed to be the 'head and neck' of Nessa.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Good luck to rational madman and thank you for participating
Before I begin, I will wish my opponent good luck which I accidently forgot to do round 1 after hitting publish too soon.
RationalMadman wrote...
This is how big the biggest earthworms in UK are:
The loch ness monster probably does not exist at all in physical body and is likely a legend built from Irish mythology regarding a worm and Nessa. The Irish legend regarding Nessa, the worms, and child molesters may or may not be based upon an actual factual true story. But that is not my point.
Worms don't go in to water
RationalMadman wrote...
These not only don't go in water much at all (though they both can be in the soil nearby), there is no way that you can suggest that is what the legend is based on, since the origins is further back than this:
As it is just a tale from Irish mythology and possibly did not even happen then it does not matter whether worms go in to water or not. It is not to be taken literally.
And you are correct that the annals which record the events were mostly not written until the 11th Century.
Medieval Irish historical tradition held that Ireland had been ruled by an Ard Rí or High King since ancient times, and compilations like the 11th-century Lebor Gabála Érenn
Many of the legendary kings are considered historical
However obviously the tales pre-date the annals and were in oral tradition long before they were written in the annals, as some of those legendary kings are in fact considered historical, though many are considered legendary.
Many of these kings are considered to be legendary. Dynastic affiliations are based on the genealogies of historical dynasties who claimed them as an ancestor.
Examples
I will gives some examples below of Irish high kings from a very early period that are thought to be historical, just to show that the tradition pre-dated the annals and was already an oral tradition.
Tuathal Techtmar
Tuathat Tachtmar is suspected of being the exiled Irish prince spoken about by Tacitus that was entertained by Agricola regarding Agricola providing him with support in order for Tuathal to reconquer Ireland so that Agricola could have a friendly Irish prince as an ally.
Taking the native dating as broadly accurate, another theory has emerged. The Roman historian Tacitus mentions that Agricola, while governor of Roman Britain (AD 78–84), entertained an exiled Irish prince, thinking to use him as a pretext for a possible conquest of Ireland.[12] Neither Agricola nor his successors ever conquered Ireland, but in recent years archaeology has challenged the belief that the Romans never set foot on the island. Roman and Romano-British artefacts have been found primarily in Leinster, notably a fortified site on the promontory of Drumanagh, fifteen miles north of Dublin, and burials on the nearby island of Lambay, both close to where Túathal is supposed to have landed, and other sites associated with Túathal such as Tara and Clogher. However, whether this is evidence of trade, diplomacy or military activity is a matter of controversy. It is possible that the Romans may have given support to Túathal, or someone like him, to regain his throne in the interests of having a friendly neighbour who could restrain Irish raiding.[5][13] The 2nd-century Roman poet Juvenal, who may have served in Britain under Agricola, wrote that "arms had been taken beyond the shores of Ireland",[14] and the coincidence of dates is striking.
The Three Collas
There is apparently DNA evidence to confirm the 4th century existence of the Three Collas.
The Three Collas (Modern Irish: Trí Cholla) were, according to medieval Irish legend and historical tradition, the fourth-century sons of Eochaid Doimlén, son of Cairbre Lifechair. Their names were: Cairell Colla Uais; Muiredach Colla Fo Chrí (also spelt Colla Dá Crich, or Fochrich); and Áed Colla Menn. Colla Uais ruled as High King of Ireland for four years.[1] Recent DNA analysis confirms the history of the Three Collas in fourth-century Ireland, but questions their descent from Eochaid Doimlén and Cairbre Lifechair.
Dind Tradui
Crimthan Mor from 4th Century AD is also thought to have been a factual Irish high king with a factual fortress.
According to the Sanas Cormaic,[3] Crimthand Mór mac Fidaig built a great fortress in Cornwall known as Dind Traduí or Dinn Tradui (Dun Tredui/e, fortress of the three ramparts).[4] There appears to be little doubt that it existed,[5]
Pedophilic undertones
RationalMadman wrote..
local stone carvings by the Pict depict a mysterious beast with flippers. The first written account appears in a biography of St. Columba from 565 AD.
Regarding the biography of St. Columba, you may be interested to know that this first written account also has major Pedophilic undertones.
You can read all about St. Columba's full story regards his loch ness monster experience below and it includes a meeting with a wizard that is keeping an Irish slave girl captive.
The first claimed sighting of the Loch Ness Monster was in the River Ness in AD 565, when Saint Columba is said to have banished a "water monster" back into the river after it tried to attack one of his disciples who was swimming across the river.[17]According to Adomnán, when Columba visited King Bridei I of Pictland at his house on the River Ness, he met a wizard named Broichan who had an Irish slave-girl that he refused to release even though Columba pleaded with him. Columba went out of Bridei's house and picked up a white pebble from the river. He said that the pebble would be used to heal many sick people in Pictland, and that Broichan was suffering for his sins at that very moment. After he had finished speaking, two messengers came to tell them that Broichan had a seizure and they wanted Columba to help them. Columba gave them the stone and said to dip it in water to give to Broichan, if he agreed to release the slave-girl. He agreed to do so, and the stone was put in water and it floated on it; the wizard drank from the water and was healed. This stone was kept by King Bridei in the royal treasury for the rest of his life, and anyone who came there for healing would be given water with the stone floating in it, and they would be healed.[18]
Mistake by my opponent, Jesus Christ
RationalMadman wrote....
So, while it's crystal clear what my opponent is trying to do here, it's frankly insulting to all proud Scots to suggest they nabbed their folklore legend from the Irish, since Princess Ness was alive after the legend of the Loch Ness monster had already begun to surface, as evidenced by records of sightings.
This is actually incorrect. Princess Ness was the mother of Conchobar Mac Nessa and according to oral tradition Conchobar Mac Nessa was born on the same day as Jesus Christ. This is at least 500 years before any claimed sighting of the loch ness monster.
As she and Cathbad set out to visit Fachtna, Ness goes into labour. Cathbad tells her if she can manage not to give birth until the following day, her son will be a great king and have everlasting fame, for he will be born on the same day as Jesus Christ. Ness sits on a flagstone by the river Conchobar, and the following morning gives birth. The baby falls into the river, but Cathbad lifts him out, names him Conchobar after the river, and brings him up as his own son.[3]
RationalMadmans dinosaur remnant theory - Archaeological evidence required
RationalMadman wrote...
Since it dates so far back, it's possible that some kind of dinosaur remnant that has since gone extinct was genuinely in the waters, the most likely relative (or creature itself) was this:
This may or may not be true, but I don't believe it myself, and I think you should try and provide some archaeological evidence for this claim in round 2.
RationalMadmans link does not exist - Needs to be corrected in round 2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagarflj
Ok, so I have responded to all RationalMadmans arguments and he has even been good enough to put forward his own dinosaur theory. I will end round two with including a little fact about the River Ness which runs in to Loch Ness.
River Ness etymology
It just so happens that the name Ness probably derives from Nessa, a river goddess.
The hydronym Ness is of Pictish origin.[3] The name may be derived from *Nessa, the name of a river goddess.[3]
Thank you for the good argument and good luck
Con
#4
So far Pro has given 0% proof of the loch Ness monster. Instead, Pro has begun to commit extreme ad hominem, strawman and gish gallop.
His Round One is nothing more than a series of contradicting references to worms in Ireland... Wait, not it's not.
Instead of referring to worms, he proves that the name Nessa and Ness have been used in Irish royalty.
The legend he calls pedophilic (which I didn't write no matter what he says), was aroubd before princess Nessa. I didn't make a mistake, he did. We don't know when Loch Ness was first seen, cameras and official records don't go back so far. What I'm referring to is a painting/drawing that strongly implies it was a legend spoken of in Scotland as far bacj as before 500BC.
The Scots didn't know much about the Irish as tbe cultures developed. Pro may be trying to say it's a gaelic celtic folklore tale. In this case, I demand proof. Not proof that the named Nessa was around in Ireland, proof that it's a worm.
Does Pro grasp how tiny a British or Irish Worm is? This isn't some massive freak case of worm in the Amazon rainforest. Even they don't grow big enough or reside in water swimming in the was the Loch Ness monster is said to.
The head and neck of Loch Ness monster move exactly like a swan or goose do (especially swan but from sime angles goose). The rest of the body cannit possibly be a tiny worm, that is outrageous to claim.
Pro has proven absolutely nothing other than that the Irish has a legend about worms and that some famous people in Ireland had the name Ness or Nessa.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you again to RationalMadman for the participation and posting the round 3 argument
I will first begin with thanking RationalMadman for his participation in this debate.
Comment section
I need to first apologise to RationalMadman as he brought up some concerns in the comment section that I was accusing him of Pedophilic undertones.
RationalMadman wrote...
I am not fucking okay with being mocked and accused of writing anything with pedophilic undertones. This is fucking bullshit.
St Columba
It is unfortunate that RationalMadman got the impression that I was referring to his writings. If you read the passage in round 2 "slowly" and "carefully" you will actually see I was referring to the loch ness monster account written by St Columba which included an Irish slave girl being held captive by a wizard.
Of course RationalMadman is free to dispute that there is Paedophilic undertones here. Perhaps he believes that there is nothing to suggest that the Irish slave girl being held captive was being sexually abused by the wizard? But he did not contend this. Instead he appears to have got the impression I was referring to his writing. But what I was referring to is written in round 2, and below.
RationalMadmans Missing link
I Will now deal with the missing link from the last round that I asked RationalMadman to provide this round.
He was actually good enough to provide the full link in the comment section after I had published my debate. So I will now deal with his claim.
RationalMadman wrote...
Also, that legend in Ireland was actually potentially 'stolen' from Iceland.
First I would like to point out that it is unlikely that Ireland stole anything from Iceland considering Iceland is thought to have only been inhabited since the 8th Century AD, with the first inhabitants being Irish monks.
According to both Landnámabók and Íslendingabók, monks known as the Papar lived in Iceland before Scandinavian settlers arrived, possibly members of a Hiberno-Scottish mission. Recent archaeological excavations have revealed the ruins of a cabin in Hafnir on the Reykjanes peninsula. Carbon dating indicates that it was abandoned sometime between 770 and 880.
RationalMadmans views not even touched upon in the article he quoted
Next, I will take his claim that the Irish likely stole the legend from Iceland, and I will copy and paste the quote in the link he provided and nowhere does it even refer to anything remotely pertaining to his claim.
As with the Scottish lake Loch Ness, a cryptid serpent, called Lagarfljótsormurinn by locals, is believed by some to live in the depths of Lagarfljót.
No proof for the loch ness monster
RationalMadman wrote...
So far Pro has given 0% proof of the loch Ness monster. Instead, Pro has begun to commit extreme ad hominem, strawman and gish gallop.
I do not believe in the loch ness monster as a literal being. I believe the legend to be metaphorical. So you will not be getting any proof of the loch ness monster from me.
RationalMadman has totally failed to read his own source properly
RationalMadman claims that the pictish cave drawings date back to 500 BC, yet according to his own Britannica encyclopedia link, the picts are only first attested to in 297 AD.
This is still at least 297 years after the first claimed mention of Conchobar Mac Nessa.
The Picts were first noticed in AD 297, when a Roman writer spoke of the “Picts and Irish [Scots] attacking” Hadrian’s Wall.
RationalMadmans other source says his theory is a myth
Regarding the other source that RationalMadman provided in round 1. His very own Britannica encyclopedia link begins with declaring his theory a myth.
RationalMadman asks for proof that the loch ness monster legend has gaelic roots
RationalMadman wrote
The Scots didn't know much about the Irish as tbe cultures developed. Pro may be trying to say it's a gaelic celtic folklore tale. In this case, I demand proof. Not proof that the named Nessa was around in Ireland, proof that it's a worm.
St Columba's account may have been taken from Irish accounts
As it happens, certain historians speculate that St Columba's account could have been a plagiarization from Irish legends.
He also concludes that the story of Saint Columba may have been impacted by earlier Irish myths about the Caoránach and an Oilliphéist.[24]
Ness or Nessa
RationalMadman wrote...
Pro has proven absolutely nothing other than that the Irish has a legend about worms and that some famous people in Ireland had the name Ness or Nessa.
If you read the debate "carefully" and "slowly" you will find it is a little bit more than that.
Nessa according to Irish myth would have been one of the girls that swallowed the worm taken from the river which would be alleged to have made her pregnant.
Add this to the story of St Columba who bumped in to a wizard on the banks of the river ness that was keeping a slave girl captive, and added to the fact that St Columba himself is suspected to have plagiarized the story straight from Irish legends, and we have a pretty decent theory in the making.
RationalMadmans dinosaur
RationalMadman
The head and neck of Loch Ness monster move exactly like a swan or goose do (especially swan but from sime angles goose). The rest of the body cannit possibly be a tiny worm, that is outrageous to claim.
Rational Madman appears to believe that the loch ness monster is a real physical dinosaur. So much so that he is able to describe it and apparently it moves like a swan or a goose, which is pretty impressive considering it is probably a mythological invention.
My Theory for a real loch ness monster
Being someone that enjoys cruises and is regularly on holiday in the seas I know that not everything that pops its head out of the water can be identified.
When out in the ocean all sorts of things are regularly appearing out of the water. Heads, finns et cetera. However just because you cannot identify it does not mean that you automatically assume it is a sea monster or a dinosaur. You usually assume it is either a dolphin, a seal, shark, whale, or some other conventional sea creature. But with the legends surrounding loch ness, and everyone already on the look out for anything mysterious, anything at-all which cannot be explained automatically must be the loch ness monster, as opposed to an unidentified conventional sea creature. So I would like to now look in to RationalMadmans dinosaur theory a little closer.
The loch ness monster has been searched for exhaustively. Beginning with the Edward Mountain expedition (1934). Then the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau (1962–1972). Then Sonar study (1967–1968), Robert Rines studies (1972, 1975, 2001, 2008), Operation Deepscan (1987), Searching for the Loch Ness Monster (2003), DNA survey (2018).
Now what do all those searches have in common? They found no evidence for a loch ness monster.
Explanations en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster#Explanations
The conventional theory for the loch ness monster is that the loch ness monster is a misidentification of known animals such as Bird wakes, Eels, Greenland shark, Wels catfish.
Those theories are a lot more plausible than a dinosaur, but still do not rule out the legend stemming from an Irish legend possibly brought to British shores by St Columba.
RationalMadmans dinosaur remnant theory - Archaeological evidence required
In round 2 I asked RationalMadman to provide archaeological evidence for his dinosaur theory, but none was forthcoming, so I will ask again for this for the next round.
Thank you again for the continued debate, look forward to the next round.
Round 4
Pro
#7
RationalMadman forfeited round 3
Unfortunately my opponent RationalMadman has forfeited round 3. I hope all is well.
Recap
I will use this opportunity to recap on the debate so far and set out some arguments that RationalMadman will have to answer in his next round.
RationalMadmans first argument was that the legend of the loch ness monster goes further back in time than the birth of Conchobar Mac Nessa
Since RationalMadman made this statement below, what have we learned? We have learned that legend has it that Conchobar Mac Nessa was born on the same day as Jesus Christ, and so far RationalMadman has been unable to support his opening argument in any way shape or form.
RationalMadman wrote round 1...
These not only don't go in water much at all (though they both can be in the soil nearby), there is no way that you can suggest that is what the legend is based on, since the origins is further back than this:
before 500bc
In round 2 RationalMadman "claimed" that the proof for his argument lay in rock carvings which he "claimed" dated back to before 500 BC.
RationalMadman wrote...
What I'm referring to is a painting/drawing that strongly implies it was a legend spoken of in Scotland as far bacj as before 500BC.
RationalMadman must provide proof for this statement in round 4, because yet again his own source does not support this - Not for the first time
RationalMadman is going to have to explain where exactly he got this dating from, because he provided two sources, one of which we have already seen, and another which I will link to below.
His link is to the Britannica encyclopedia, and whilst the Britannica encyclopedia is a good source, it is only a good source if you use it correctly and do not misrepresent what is written, and what is written does not in anyway support RationalMadmans assertion that those drawings date back to before 500 BC, as quite simply his article makes no mention of this. I will copy and paste below what is written. Where does it mention since before 500 BC? RationalMadman needs to answer this and clarify where he got 500 BC from, as it appears to be a date plucked from thin air.
Reports of a monster inhabiting Loch Ness date back to ancient times. Notably, local stone carvings by the Pict depict a mysterious beast with flippers. The first written account appears in a biography of St. Columba from 565 AD.
Scots are descended from two peoples. Picts, and Irish
My opponents second argument that has since deteriorated as the debate went on, was that it is "insulting" to suggest that Scots got their legends from the Irish.
RationalMadman wrote round 1...
So, while it's crystal clear what my opponent is trying to do here, it's frankly insulting to all proud Scots to suggest they nabbed their folklore legend from the Irish
St Columba, the Jewel in my crown
However, the jewel in my crown in this argument turned out to be St Columba who is suspected to have plagiarized Irish legends regarding his loch ness monster experience, and as we have already covered, if my argument is not strong enough from just this, then it gets even stronger when we learn that his loch ness experience also includes an encounter on the banks of the river ness with a wizard who is keeping an Irish slave girl captive.
Now, just to top it off, I will delve in to conventional Scottish history, and according to conventional Scottish history the Scots are descended from two peoples. The Picts, and the Irish.
The Scottish people (Scots: Scots Fowk; Scottish Gaelic: Albannaich, Old English: Scottas) or Scots are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland. Historically, they emerged from an amalgamation of two Celtic-speaking peoples, the Picts and Gaels, who founded the Kingdom of Scotland (or Alba) in the 9th century
RationalMadman needs to explain his assertion that the Irish got their legends from the Icelanders when Iceland was not even inhabited when the loch ness monster legend began
RationalMadmans third and final round 1 argument that the Irish got their legends from the Icelanders fell flat on its face when he learned that Iceland was not even inhabited when St Columba first set foot on Scottish soil. And that was all three of his round 1 arguments thoroughly debunked. He has currently lost "all" three of his first round arguments.
RationalMadman wrote round 1...
Also, that legend in Ireland was actually potentially 'stolen' from Iceland.
RationalMadman is still to provide archaeological evidence for his dinosaur theory
It appears RationalMadman is failing to prove that there is any other theory better than the theory that the loch ness monster is most likely a worm from Irish legends.
He has failed to support "one single argument", and also failed totally to respond whatsoever to round 3.
I wish RationalMadman all the best and hope to see him for round 4
Con
#8
This is a 1-day-per-round debate where my opponent posts rapid reponses, so life got in the way and I forfeit 1/5 Rounds. I'm sorry but I genuinely couldn't make the deadline for IRL reasons.
I refuse to respond to Pro's rebuttals at this point and here is why; Pro hasn't proven anything, he is demanding I prove it.
I will stick to my points and make clear what I've claimed and presented.
Size
The size of British worms make it absolutely unfeasible that this is what the Loch Ness monster would be, unless explicitly stated to be it (which it isn't).
Swan
The head and neck of the Loch Ness monster on any photo pretty much equals a swan or goose silhouette.
Swan silhouettes:
Goose silhouette (first link) and general swimming posture (second and third link):
While geese are more common in Canada than Britain, it doesn't matter all that much, my second link is an English goose and my primary theory is a swan late at night.
Actually if it was either of them with young offspring behind them, it would appear like this:
^ swans with babies behind them
^ goose (but again, it's less likely as geese tend to remain as a couple of mother and father while swimming with their young, whereas swans let the mother lead that role)
^ Swans are very much a Scottish bird, they inhabit many lakes (lakes are what the Scots called lochs).
If it was very late at night and you saw a swan swimming with something like its offspring (or even other swans) behind it, from a distance it will look something like the head and nech of loch ness which has photos, with something weird behind it. All photos of loch ness monster are taken late at night, this is how they look:
Actually that seems to be the only photo that is proven to have no signs of photo shopped or hoaxing involved.
The only other explanation is perhaps a giant eel
However, I am much more sure that long before cameras existed andthis 'photo' which may be a giant eel was around, the actual sightings were swans.
The only other explanation is that it's a remnant of the dinosaur type I linked to in Round 1, I didn't explicitly say that's my direct theory.
Pro never explains how or why the Scots stole the folklore from the Irish
Pro's Round 1 is a series of random references to 'Ness' or 'Nessa'. It has absolutely no link between one thing to the next and his overall case contradicts itself since why on Earth would a Princess of the Royal Family of Ireland be named after a hideous worm?
This entire thing makes very little sense, the most Pro has proven is that Ireland has a tale about a worm.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Welcome back RationalMadman & Good luck
RationalMadman wrote...
This is a 1-day-per-round debate where my opponent posts rapid reponses, so life got in the way and I forfeit 1/5 Rounds. I'm sorry but I genuinely couldn't make the deadline for IRL reasons.
I apologise for this, but for me this is not an excuse. If it is a boxing match or any other game for that matter, not turning up or complaining that things are too fast is an automatic defeat. The rules were set out in the description. 24 hours, 5 rounds, and I set it at that for a reason, as I want to make it tougher for my opponents. I apologise for my opinion on this matter. And sorry if I sound ungracious on this matter.
RationalMadman refuses to respond to rebuttals
RationalMadman wrote...
I refuse to respond to Pro's rebuttals at this point and here is why; Pro hasn't proven anything, he is demanding I prove it.
Refusing to respond to rebuttals regarding arguments you lost and mistakes you clearly made is not a good way of redeeming them.
RationalMadman repeats his long time mooted round 1 argument
RationalMadman wrote...
The size of British worms make it absolutely unfeasible that this is what the Loch Ness monster would be, unless explicitly stated to be it (which it isn't).
Like has already been established the size of a worm is of no consequence as you are supposed to be arguing for reasons why the loch ness monster legend could not possibly be a metaphor for an old Irish legend regarding a Hiberno-Scottish girl named Ness drinking a worm from a river which she would most likely have been told made her pregnant, and not Cathbad. You seem to be completely avoiding this.
Goose
RationalMadman wrote...
The head and neck of the Loch Ness monster on any photo pretty much equals a swan or goose silhouette.
Yes, I agree, most of the actual sightings could be a goose, or swan, or some other conventional creature. But you are still to find at least some anecdotal evidence for a dinosaur, even if not archaeological.
Plenty geese in Scotland
RationalMadman wrote...
While geese are more common in Canada than Britain, it doesn't matter all that much, my second link is an English goose and my primary theory is a swan late at night.
Being from Scotland myself, I can vouch that there are plenty of Geese in Scotland. Most of the sightings are probably not Geese though. It is however a plausible theory and it could account for some of the sightings, certainly. But this does not explain how the loch ness monster became a legend in the first place. I have already presented evidence of historians that believe the source for the legend may have came from Irish legends, but you appear to be refusing to rebut this.
RationalMadmans Swan theory
RationalMadman wrote..
However, I am much more sure that long before cameras existed andthis 'photo' which may be a giant eel was around, the actual sightings were swans.
I admit, it is a decent theory and could account for some sightings. It is more plausible than your previous dinosaur theory, but I don't think it accounts for how the legend began, and I don't think it is better than the roots of the legend having Irish roots.
Anecdotal evidence wanted for RationalMadmans dinosaur theory
RationalMadman wrote...
The only other explanation is that it's a remnant of the dinosaur type I linked to in Round 1, I didn't explicitly say that's my direct theory.
That's fine. You are allowed as many theories as you want. It is your job to "attempt" to disprove that the theory that the loch ness monster has its origins in Irish legends regarding a worm and a girl named ness, is not the best theory. To do that you have done the correct thing by providing your own alternative theories in to what you consider the best theory. I feel however all the arguments you were wrong about and lost and round you missed makes it very difficult for you to claim that you have successfully established that your theory is the better theory. The first thing one would expect is that you are correct about the facts you put forward for your argument. One could argue that without correct facts, there "is no debate". It did not reach debate stage.
Pro never explains how or why the Scots stole the folklore from the Irish
RationalMadman wrote...
Pro's Round 1 is a series of random references to 'Ness' or 'Nessa'. It has absolutely no link between one thing to the next and his overall case contradicts itself since why on Earth would a Princess of the Royal Family of Ireland be named after a hideous worm?
Quite simply, I never ever said Scots stole the legend from the Irish, so I must assume that the reason you are refusing to rebute is because you have not read the entire debate slowly and carefully. Anyone that reads the debate slowly and carefully will see I have already covered that the theory involves St Columba bringing it over from Ireland.
This is yet another thin you are failing to rebute, you see.
But, you do need to rebute those arguments, though it is a bit below the belt you wait until round 5. after which I cannot respond. In reality you had your final chance this round, and for reasons known only to yourself, you refused to do so.
RationalMadman refused to engage
RationalMadman wrote...
This entire thing makes very little sense, the most Pro has proven is that Ireland has a tale about a worm.
That is all very well just saying that. But just saying that is not enough. You need to establish via engaging in debate why this is true. You have not only failed to do this, but actually refused to do this.
Thank you for returning, and good luck in final round
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Before describing my RFD, I must note the absurdity of both the Topic/Resolution, and how it was argued by Pro. I am to approach the Topic from a perspective of a best theory, and that theory’s validity by its virtue that the Loch Ness Monster was probably a worm. Qualification choices of best probability make too easy work by Pro to assume one can achieve victory in a debate when setting such a low bar for acceptance of argument, whatever that argument may be. Worse, in the Description, after snubbing what would normally be used to describe definitions, Pro declares he will not accept “absurd definitions.” Better to have offered, as Instigator, any definitions at all rather than declare definitions that Con may offer, lacking them from Pro, as “absurd.” Further insult is offered by Pro declaring “automatic win” should Con not understand “definition in the title,” which is, in fact, non-existent. If this is assumed to be a precursor to how this vote will proceed, consider this preamble to the Argument vote.
Argument: Pro’s argument contains such divergent material, [Cathbad, Twelve fathers, Fachtna Fathach, Two worms… all just in R1] that have little linkage to the Resolution subject, the Lock Ness Monster, other than Pro’s declaration of linkage [I am not convinced]. Trying to make the linkage borders on loss of legibility. Pro’s BoP ought to be simple to follow. Ought to be. I’m following the proverbial cow with its tail tied to a paintbrush, marking the road. The road is spaghetti noodles. This convoluted road asks me to find a best probability out of two worms swallowed by a young lass, making her pregnant, thus producing the son of a worm. It is common knowledge that two worms are necessary for worm coitus, but both worms carry male and female reproductive capability. It is a leap of probability to suggest that the digestive system of a human female and her reproductive system have any common tissue that would produce any offspring at all, assuming that there is even the most remote possibility that the two species, worm and human, have compatible genomes], is just a reach too far for this voter to grant the win to Pro, even if this tale is merely relegated to myth. Pro actually goes there in R2, R3, and discounts the myth, burying pro’s own argument of “best probability.” I cannot agree with Pro’s conclusion, “So, the loch ness monster was likely a worm.” Okay, it was not a declarative statement, but it does ask that I agree it is probable. No, not even remotely does it convince as a debate argument. Con capably rebutted the convoluted spaghetti-noodle exercise of historic dalliance of the characters noted above by Pro. Pro lost this argument in R1 if not in the description, and exacerbated the loss going forward. Points to Con.
Sources; Regardless of the absurdity of Pro’s argument, and the soundness of Con’s rebuttal, both used sources extensively. Tie.
Legibility: As noted above, Pro loses this point by the spaghetti-nature of the argument. I am constantly beset with inability to follow the sense of the Pro argument. It is, by another metaphor, a cat’s cradle. It did not need to be so complicated with a delirious history of characters, none of whom can be embraced, even, eventually, by Pro, himself. Pro loses this point to Con.
Conduct: By voting policy, which has a hard line relative to forfeiture, that even a single round forfeiture [while Con had 2 rounds of forfeiture, regardless of reason] requires a loss of conduct point. There is a 40% forfeiture rate rule in the Voting Policy [in this debate, 2 of 5 rounds forfeited is 40%], but that is not a loss of debate, but merely the threshold to decide to ignore argument points. I chose to engage the arguments anyway, which the Policy allows. Further, Pro’s conduct in the Description, which I found deplorable, I nevertheless regret to be driven by the forfeit rule to automatically offer the conduct point to Pro.
Well at least you appear to admit to grasping the concept. I could not admit to not grasping the concept either, even if I do not 100% agree with my own "theory".
Just so we are clear, I am not even sure if it's based on the Irish tale or not. I just debated.
100% disagree and words such as deplorable should not be getting thrown about lightly. Nor should accusations of me accusing others of using pedophilic undertones. Nor should I have to declare that I 100% believe in the theory I am arguing for when I don't. RationalMadman accepted the terms written in the description and therefore if I was awarded a conduct violation due to what was written in my description that should also be removed. "deplorable" really!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 4 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote opens with good feedback on the setup, then gives direct criteria by criteria overview.
Arguments could have gotten into detail of cons case, but it points well to the core issue of pro's BoP type failure that even factoring in a ton of outside knowledge he still could not follow how it was trying to connect.
Note: Had this been done lazily or with malice, the vote would be removed; as is, it gave pro a ton of feedback which hopefully he can make use of for future debates on this topic or stylifically any other.
Sources are fairly tied.
Legibility for the manner in which pro assembled his case, making it (at least to the voter) comparatively burdensome to decipher (and with the amount of cited material, the voter clearly did try to decipher it).
Conduct to pro for the forfeitures, in spite of the voter finding some of his behavior deplorable (finding behavior outright deplorable, could have easily been used to justify leaving conduct tied; or worse if it was believed to have been bad enough to chase off the other debater).
This is overall a very useful vote in terms of feedback, with clear review over what happened and why it makes the point allocations to each side.
**************************************************
Thank you for letting me know.
I've sent you a PM, where such discussion is more appropriate, but I've said my piece and will likely have nothing further to say about it.
If you do not wish to support your argument nor engage with me in friendly discussion then that is your perogative. I shall leave you in peace.
I refuse to continue this discussion. To probe further than what I've said is to go beyond my RFD, and that is not to be had. You may take or leave my other advice, which has naught to do with this debate, but your debate style in general, which is appropriate comment territory, and which is available for all to see in your many challenges. What is the probability of your taking my advice? Why don't you make a debate challenge about it? I'll not engage it.
Thank you for the assassination. However whilst you have put up a great argument, the debate was not Nevets v Fauxlaw. It was Nevets v RationalMadman and you never once mentioned RationalMadman in the comment below, and you "barely" gave him a mention in your explanation in the voting section. Nowhere did RationalMadman make any of the arguments "you" are arguing. Therefore, apart from not being able to support the facts he put over, such as the Picts drawing depictions of Nessie dating back to 500bc, and Ireland getting their legends from Iceland, which fact did you think RM was correct about?
My rationale was clearly indicated in the text of my RFD: the story of St. Columbia and the slave girl, like most of your exemplary characters you use as evidentiary argument, miss justification of the Resolution. What, exactly, have they to do with the Loch Ness Monster other than explaining that there were people inhabiting both Ireland and Scotland [though not yet known by those names] when the Loch Ness monster first has mention in either historic or mythic text. You lose on relevance to the Resolution.
Further, I note that many of your challenges contain the verbiage "probably" or "likely," or other indefinite terms which are poor constructs of debate protocol, at least on this site. Either take a positive or negative stand, or don't bother. I also note that many of your challenges go wanting for opposition. I wonder why? You have a backbone, I presume. Use it. Take a stand and live with the results. "Probably" is a spineless worm, and Nessie never had that accusation.
You merely said RM's argument was better but you did not establish which argument was better nor how it was better. You also agree that I accused RationalMadman of writing with Pedophilic undertones. Can you please clarify how you come to this conclusion, as I was referring to the story of St Columba and the wizard with the Irish slave girl. Not RationalMadman.
>> RationalMadman [you have me blocked; unfairly in my book]
Yes, as soon as I posted, I realized I had not noted the Legibility correctly. It has been corrected. By the way, I disagree with Ragnar's assessment of the whole pedophile issue. I saw no purpose in Pro's mention of the issue - totally irrelevant to the debate, therefore, one must question Pro's motivation. I disagree with Ragnar's dismissal.
Thanks for the vote.
You didn't actually award the legibility point to Con but I am happier you didn't as it was borderline anyway, so your point allocation is more solid.
I certainly did not accuse him of any such thing Ragnar.
He produced the source from Wikipedia regarding St Columba's loch ness sighting as proof that the loch ness monster legend dates back to before the story of Ness was even told (even though mythology holds that it dates to 1AD) and I responded that this story actually also contains a story about an Irish slave girl being held captive by a wizard. It was the story I was suggesting contained Pedophilic underetones, not RM's writing as I am aware RationalMadman did not even know about the full story of St Columba's account. On top of that I produced evidence that St Columba's story is believed to not have been a true story, but instead plagiarized from Irish legends.
Regarding complaints of misconduct:
Pro's case is weird with the side tangents. The level of focus on ancient child molesters, makes my mind jump to him using "worm" as a slang for that. However, that line of reasoning was present in his R1, and he never seemed to accuse con of being an a 1500 year old irish wizard, so the accusation that the Irish wizard Broichan was such a vile man, does not infer any accusation of con sharing in such depravity.
It is written below in the story of St Columba that you quoted that he encountered a wizard that was keeping an Irish slave girl captive. It is part of the story that you brought up in your argument. The story has Pedophilic undertones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness#Miscellanea
According to Adomnán, when Columba visited King Bridei I of Pictland at his house on the River Ness, he met a wizard named Broichan who had an Irish slave-girl that he refused to release even though Columba pleaded with him. Columba went out of Bridei's house and picked up a white pebble from the river. He said that the pebble would be used to heal many sick people in Pictland, and that Broichan was suffering for his sins at that very moment. After he had finished speaking, two messengers came to tell them that Broichan had a seizure and they wanted Columba to help them. Columba gave them the stone and said to dip it in water to give to Broichan, if he agreed to release the slave-girl. He agreed to do so, and the stone was put in water and it floated on it; the wizard drank from the water and was healed. This stone was kept by King Bridei in the royal treasury for the rest of his life, and anyone who came there for healing would be given water with the stone floating in it, and they would be healed.[18]
The story of St Columba has Paedophilic undertones. Where did I accuse rationalmadman of this?
You are permanently blocked.
I am not fucking okay with being mocked and accused of writing anything with pedophilic undertones. This is fucking bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagarflj%C3%B3t
You'd probably be interested in this
As much as anything else it is to guard against those that would take on a debate and argue over some absurd definition. I try to make it clear that the debate is about me defending the claim in the title and my opponent disproving that claim.
Beyond reasonable doubt? Do you have any idea how difficult that is? Please make it the civil court case burden of proof instead