Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic
#6095
It is likely that fire magic or blood magic is real
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Likely definition:
Over 50% chance to be real
Fire magic definition:
Type of magic which uses fire and offerings to the fire as a way of achieving effect.
Blood magic definition:
Type of magic which uses one's own blood as a way of achieving effect.
In this debate, it will be assumed by default that fire magic has 50% chance to be real, and that blood magic has 50% chance to be real.
The goal for Pro in this debate in order to win is to prove that it is likely that one of these options is real.
Pro doesnt have to prove both fire magic and blood magic, just show that it is likely that one of these is real.
Upon accepting, entire description is agreed upon by Pro and Con and must be followed in whole debate.
Round 1
In this debate, it will be assumed by default that fire magic has 50% chance to be real, and that blood magic has 50% chance to be real.
Real in this case would mean that it exists somewhere in some amount.
It is not possible for Con to prove that fire magic or blood magic dont exist, because he didnt observe the whole space and all people, and neither did anyone else, neither did any study or any science, thus, Con cannot provide any counter evidence in this debate regarding probability.
The goal for Pro in this debate in order to win is to prove that it is likely that one of these options is real. Pro doesnt have to prove both fire magic and blood magic, just show that it is likely that one of these is real.
So I just need to prove that at least one being real is likely.
Upon accepting, entire description is agreed upon by Pro and Con and must be followed in whole debate. Thus, no deviation from description is allowed. If Con tries to change description, it would be like trying to change the topic of this debate, which would then cost conduct point and argument point, as his arguments would be irrelevant to topic.
It was already agreed that blood magic has 50% chance to be real, and fire magic has 50% chance to be real.
So, these are the options:
1. Fire magic is real and blood magic is real
2. Fire magic is real and blood magic isnt real
3. Fire magic isnt real and blood magic is real.
4. Fire magic isnt real and blood magic isnt real.
The probability of each option, by default is 25%, even if we didnt have agreed probabilities in description.
Because fire magic has 50% probability, and blood magic has 50% probability, it is like having two coins and throwing each once. The chance of getting heads at least once would be 75%.
Each of 4 options mentioned satisfy the basic math. We see that in 2 out of 4, blood magic is real, and in 2 out of 4, fire magic is real. This respects the 50% probability of each individual magic. In 3 out of 4, one of these is real.
So only 1 out of 4 options says that neither are real. That is 25% chance that neither are real, thus 75% chance that at least one of them is real.
So chances of one of them being real is 75%.
With this, my burden of proof is upheld.
I am not using ChatGPT to argue here below, I am just using it below as a quick calculator to confirm my math.
AI calculator says:
"If fire magic and blood magic each have a 50% chance of being real, and we assume they are independent events, then the probability that at least one of them is real can be calculated like this:
- Probability that fire magic is not real = 50% = 0.5
- Probability that blood magic is not real = 50% = 0.5
- Probability that neither is real = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25
- Therefore, the probability that at least one is real = 1 - 0.25 = 0.75, or 75%
So, there's a 75% chance that at least one of them is real."
So AI calculator says 75% chance. Basic math will also tell you that there is 75% chance.
My opponent might raise some fantasy arguments now, but these shouldnt be prefered over actual math.
default that fire magic has 50% chance to be real, and that blood magic has 50% chance to be real.
I deny this premise. Default is 0% and burden of proof is 100% on Pro. However, Pro doesnt need to prove it to be 100% likely, only above 50%.
Even the idea of fire magic is unlikely to be true because semantically the only coherent pagan take on it defines it as non magical.
The warmth of the sun on your skin, the passion that burns in your heart, and that need for change and transformation; these are all sources of fire magick.
Of all takes names fire magic, that is the one of the only ones likely to be real. The issue is it lies about what magic is. It uses the term magick when nothing is magical about a warm sun. Yes it can feel wonderful if it is warm rather than scorching hot but that doesnt make it magic.
the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
Blood Magic was a kind of magic based on the employment of blood which is an important component in many rituals, spells and other aspects of the supernatural world, an due to the supernatural properties of the user's blood they can inherit specific magical blood-based powers (E.g. Blood Manipulation). Due to diversity of blood, users can used different blood type to preform different forms of spells which can bound to the blood they used.
The only example I can remotely think of is in medicine. Medical doctors do not profess having supernatural powers.
Round 2
My opponent provided no any counter arguments or any arguments for his case, except one unproved assumption:
"Default is 0%"
But this is what description says:
Upon accepting, entire description is agreed upon by Pro and Con and must be followed in whole debate.
So by accepting this debate, Con has already accepted that default is 50% as stated in description, and must be followed in whole debate.
I need to remind voters that things which dont have proof for their existence arent assumed to not exist, otherwise new discoveries would be impossible. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Also, definitions of fire magic and blood magic were already given in description, thus, Con cannot change the definitions and description he agreed to follow in whole debate.
Fire magic definition:
Type of magic which uses fire and offerings to the fire as a way of achieving effect.
Blood magic definition:
Type of magic which uses one's own blood as a way of achieving effect.
Now, with no any actual arguments provided by Con, his round might as well count as forfeit.
He might plan to bring up actual arguments in last round so I cant respond to them, but with his 1 round basically being a forfeit, he has already forfeited 50% of debate and the requirement to consider his last round new arguments ceases.
50% is not higher than 50% so Pro loses on the description alone... Except he doesnt as it says assume.
I say the assumption is a lie.
I did bring arguments.
There has been no evidence of fire magic ever and the only example was the sun being warm... That is not fire magic. How is that a spell or incantation?
Blood magic also has 0 evidence.
If you want, you can cast a vote 😊