Instigator / Pro

Sir.Lancelot

1597

rating

199

debates

55.03%

won

Topic

#6098

Fire magic and blood magic is real

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

vi_777

Parameters

Publication date: 05.01.2025 11:10PM
Last updated date: 05.21.2025 02:04PM
Type: Rated
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open
Minimal rating: None

Contender / Con

vi_777

1521

rating

debates

65.0%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

Sir.Lancelot

05.02.2025 08:27PM

Pro

Definitions:

Magic- Magic, which encompasses the subgenres of close-up magic, parlor magic, and stage magic, among others, is a performing art in which audiences are entertained by tricks, effects, or illusions of seemingly impossible feats, using natural means.

Sub-categories:

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.

Uses & Examples

Magic is a popular performance art that usually combines the use of theatrics and can occasionally be assisted with some form of tech. People who make the practice of magic their craft, hobby, or living are known as magicians. But the use of magic is not limited to only magicians and is occasionally used by crews that assist with special effects, stuntmen, or other actors/actresses in theatre. Gadgetry can also assist with the use of magic.

I'm going to give examples of how magic is used in sports or other areas of entertainment like professional wrestling. Sting is a sorcerer, Undertaker is a necromancer, and Kane is a pyromancer. (The archetypes they represent.)

Pyromancy

In this video, we have the wrestler Kane entering the ring while on fire. He is projecting the simulation that he is immune to fire and is projecting it from his own body, through his own power. However what Kane is actually doing is wearing an outfit that is fire-proof, specifically designed to protect him from the heat of the flame.

Kane Entrance (Fire + Explosion Effects)

This other video shows a time when Randy Orton almost lit himself on fire. He was fighting The Undertaker who was returning for revenge, after Randy cost him a loss against another wrestler by interfering in the fight. Randy manages to put The Undertaker in his casket and then proceeds to set it on fire.

Randy Orton torches The Undertaker’s casket: No Mercy 2005 - YouTube

Blading

While a lot of performance artists and magicians use fake blood or animal blood to simulate the illusion of bleeding. Method actors and professional wrestlers actually use their real blood. If a punch is thrown, a suplex is done, or whether they are hit in the head with a chair and then start bleeding profusely from their forehead. The method or technique manages to make it look as if the bleeds are the result of the attack itself. However, the wrestler is actually using a hidden blade to cut themselves in order to sell the fight and make the attack look more convincing. This subtle use of magic has been used by many wrestlers in the past, especially Hulk Hogan in this video.

The Secret Of How Wrestlers Actually Bleed

Sources: 1 2 3 4

vi_777

05.04.2025 03:46PM

Con

You just gave me three minutes of solid proof that what you call fire magic and blood magic is nothing more than stagecraft, illusion, and performance art.

“Magic” as you defined it—illusions using natural means—is the opposite of what most people mean when they say “magic is real.”

You brought up wrestlers like Kane, Sting, and The Undertaker. Cool performances, for sure. But here’s the problem:

Kane isn’t summoning fire—he’s using pre-rigged pyrotechnics and fireproof gear.
Randy Orton didn’t actually burn The Undertaker alive—it was a scripted stunt with safety protocols.
Blading? That’s a hidden trick, not a magical spell. If cutting your forehead and bleeding makes you a blood mage, then boxers must be casting spells in every round.

You literally said, “They use their own blood to make the fight look real.” That proves it’s not real. It’s a simulation, not sorcery.

Real vs. Real-Looking

Let me draw the line real clean:

Real magic would mean: actually manipulating fire or blood through supernatural means.
What you described is acting, special effects, and makeup.

So either:

You agree that all of this is just performance, which means fire and blood magic aren’t real,
Or you claim that wrestling stunts = magic, which makes the word "magic" so weak it's meaningless.

“When you define magic as illusion and trickery, and then say that proves magic is real, what you're really saying is: 'Magic is fake, and that proves it's real.' You can’t have it both ways.”

Thanks for playing.

Round 2

Sir.Lancelot

05.04.2025 07:55PM

Pro

“Magic” as you defined it—illusions using natural means—is the opposite of what most people mean when they say “magic is real.”

There are two versions of magic.:

Magic that exists. Which is what illusionists, magicians, showman, professional gamblers and performance artists use and hone as a craft their entire life.
Magic that doesn't exist. Spells, witchcraft, & sorcery.

I am arguing for a specific definition of magic, #1.

And showing any form of magic that uses fire or blood is how I will meet the resolution's bop.

You brought up wrestlers like Kane, Sting, and The Undertaker. Cool performances, for sure. But here’s the problem:
Kane isn’t summoning fire—he’s using pre-rigged pyrotechnics and fireproof gear.
Randy Orton didn’t actually burn The Undertaker alive—it was a scripted stunt with safety protocols.
Blading? That’s a hidden trick, not a magical spell. If cutting your forehead and bleeding makes you a blood mage, then boxers must be casting spells in every round.

That's straw-manning.

I am not making the case for sorcery or witchcraft. I'm arguing that all the gimmicks that Kane and Randy Orton use are magic tricks.

And boxers don't use blades to cut their opponents. All bleedings from boxing matches are caused by the actual punches, as the fights aren't choreographed. They're deliberate. Professional wrestlers on the other hand, use hidden blades to make the fights look more convincing. The hidden blades draw real blood, while disguising the source of the blood to make the cause look as if it came from the fake punch or head-blow from a steel chair.

The effect of the simulation is psychological, but deliberate. The illusion exists. That illusion in of itself is a form of magic, the same type of skill that magicians and performance artists use.

Not wizards, mages, or sorcerers. Life isn't an MMORPG or a fantasy novel.

The craft of practicing or using magic exists.

vi_777

05.05.2025 01:34PM

Con

“You’re Arguing Against Yourself.”

Let’s start with the definitions you gave:

Fire Magic: “A type of magic which uses fire and offerings to the fire as a way of achieving effect.”
Blood Magic: “A type of magic which uses one’s own blood as a way of achieving effect.”

These aren’t definitions of illusions or tricks. These clearly imply real-world impact through fire or blood—like actual ritual magic, not stage gimmicks.

But then in your rebuttal, you said:

“I’m not talking about witchcraft, spells, or sorcery. I’m talking about the craft magicians and performers use.”

You Just Cut Your Own Argument

Your definitions sound supernatural—effects achieved through fire and blood.
But your defense is built on stage magic, theatrics, and illusions.
That means you're not defending your definitions at all. You're just shifting the goalpost to a different kind of “magic” you find easier to prove.

So which is it?

If you stand by your definitions, then you’re claiming supernatural magic is real, which you then deny.
If you don’t stand by your definitions, then your case collapses under its own weight.

Either way, you’re arguing against yourself.

Fire Magic? No Offerings, No Effect

You say fire magic uses offerings to achieve an effect. But your own examples are:

Wrestlers using pre-rigged pyrotechnics
Stage actors using fireproof gear
Magicians using smoke machines

None of this has anything to do with offerings, rituals, or fire producing any actual effect beyond showmanship. That’s tech, not magic.

Blood Magic? Real Blood, Fake Cause

You say blood magic uses your own blood to achieve an effect. But in wrestling:

Wrestlers use hidden blades to cut themselves.
The illusion is that the wound came from a hit.
The blood isn’t causing anything—it’s a prop.

By your definition, someone shaving and accidentally nicking themselves in a dramatic scene would be a blood mage. That’s how flimsy this logic is.

You’re Just Playing with Labels

You took ritualistic-sounding definitions and applied them to stage gimmicks.

If all it takes to make something “magic” is using fire or bleeding for a show, then Hollywood, haunted houses, and even BBQ chefs are blood/fire magicians.

But redefining special effects as “magic” doesn’t make magic real. It just makes your argument semantics.

You’re not proving magic is real. You’re just relabeling art and performance as magic because it looks cool.

Round 3

Sir.Lancelot

05.07.2025 01:34PM

Pro

Forfeited

vi_777

05.07.2025 02:04PM

Con

“If magic were real, they wouldn’t have to fake it.”

You tried to prove fire magic is real—with pyrotechnics.

You tried to prove blood magic is real—with razors.

But fireproof suits and hidden blades don’t make magic real. They prove exactly the opposite:

It’s all just smoke and blood, staged to look like power where there is none.

Real magic wouldn’t need props.

Real blood magic wouldn’t need a hidden blade.

If the only way to prove it exists is to fake it—then it doesn’t.

And that’s game.

vi_777

05.13.2025 02:30PM

#21

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

ohhh i c well but uh yk u did well n if u hadn;t forfeited, it would hv been cool to see wht u would come up with against mine one but uh ig some other time / 🤗

Sir.Lancelot

05.13.2025 02:20PM

#20

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

@AdaptableRatman

Ty guys for the votes

Sir.Lancelot

05.13.2025 02:13PM

#19

-->

@vi_777

The trick, if executed correctly, would have attempted an appeal to semantics.
Stretching the definition of magic to argue that stage magic & illusion fit within the scope of the discussion.

vi_777

05.13.2025 12:13PM

#18

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

thou, yk mr lancelot, back in the comments, u said u were gonna play with the definitions or smthin, wht was that abt???? yk i am a bit curious abt that, like wht were u actually gonna do sooooo meow?

vi_777

05.13.2025 12:12PM

#17

-->

@AdaptableRatman

doshiyou////// anyways thx for the vote meowwww(◕̻͠ ◸◕̻͠ )

vi_777

05.13.2025 11:32AM

#16

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

thx for the vote/ ◕⩊◕

vi_777

05.12.2025 06:08PM

#15

meowwww/ i voted rn on like idk 10 or more debates so yk i was wondering if i could actually vote on mine but that would be ofc on merit/,,,,,,, so uh votes huh? neh nvm

Sir.Lancelot

05.07.2025 09:21PM

#14

-->

@21Pilots

This is a recreated debate.

I’ve borrowed TheGreatSunGod’s resolution and definitions because while most would assume the context is witchcraft.
The definitions are vague enough for me to argue a different version than the original intent.

As AdaptableRatman called it, this debate is a semantic trap.

21Pilots

05.07.2025 08:30PM

#13

Witchcraft?

vi_777

05.04.2025 06:41PM

#12

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

🤔....

TheGreatSunGod

05.04.2025 04:14PM

#11

-->

@vi_777

"If cutting your forehead and bleeding makes you a blood mage, then boxers must be casting spells in every round"

Maybe some boxers are blood mages and box helps them obtain their own blood? But then again, probably difficult to say incantations while getting repeatedly punched in the head.

Sir.Lancelot

05.02.2025 10:43PM

#10

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

That's understandable, but you have real potential with what you could do here.

TheGreatSunGod

05.02.2025 10:39PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

I dont really plan to be unbeatable here. Just create space for my arguments.

Sir.Lancelot

05.02.2025 10:29PM

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

I approve of the debate & resolution traps you set.

If you were to do that and debate seriously, you would be unbeatable.

TheGreatSunGod

05.02.2025 10:15PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

Interesting, but really not the type of magic I wanted to argue for. We all know magic tricks exist.

TheGreatSunGod

05.02.2025 03:48PM

New users cant accept rated debates.

TheGreatSunGod

05.02.2025 03:47PM

You should make this standard debate.

Sir.Lancelot

05.02.2025 03:22PM

-->

@Mall

Paganism

Mall

05.02.2025 03:17PM

Very vague and semantical.

Sir.Lancelot

05.02.2025 03:14AM

-->

@AdaptableRatman

You are correct.
My trick is too obvious.

AdaptableRatman

05.02.2025 02:37AM

I have a theory on what youll do with the definition of magic and blood magic.

AdaptableRatman

05.13.2025 11:53AM

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:

Round 3 forfeit gives conduct to Con.

Round 2 shows Con exposing Pro's definitions as backfiring. Pro's definitions of fire magic and blood magic backfire. They do not let trickery alone be a validated magic form.

This sealed the deal as seen by Pro forfeiting Round 3.

This was semantic sepukku.

TheGreatSunGod

05.12.2025 06:27PM

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:

I am leaving arguments as a tie because the common definition of magic isnt magic tricks. And arguing that magic tricks and illusions are real comes a bit strange, when they are by definition fake.

Conduct to Con due to forfeit.