Instigator / Pro
7
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#657

Everything that exist is made up of elementary particles

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Description

No trickery here. My claim is that: Everything (literally) that exist (type 1 existence, aka physical) is made up of elementary (absolute smallest form) particles.

I don't do contingencies outside of default debate rules. Argue how you see fit.

-->
@killshot

In my current worldview, Space to me is like a vacuum of nothingness. I would picture it as being something that naturally wants to be filled because all space seems to mostly be filled with something. So maybe I could consider it a type of force. I could not even fathom what truly empty space looks like.

-->
@killshot

So here's my ultimate concession. I could probably be convinced of space existing. That's not completely off the table for me. Maybe it could be pixelated, there's theory for that already so it has precedent. the time part is definitely a no go for me so that's the key reason I reject spacetime. I don't think there's anything that could convince me that time exist because all of the evidence unequivocally points towards it being an abstract.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Ya, I'm not really sure where it fits either.. I'm on the fence with this currently. The more I think about it, the more I teeter back and forth haha. It's definitely an interesting topic..

-->
@killshot

My type 1 existence involves holding space in reality, so only matter and energy fit into it. However, I guess I wouldn't be totally against something being type 1 if it's objectively rooted in reality. This would kind of blur the line between type 1 and type 2, but I don't really start to worry until people start trying to stick type 3 and 4 into type 1. That's where I start finger wagging. So I wouldn't be against that per se since it would still give you good logic.

-->
@killshot

Right, so I would ask what specifically is bending light? Is it space? or gravity? or friction? or physical interactions.

see when they say universe is expanding. All that seems to mean to me is that objects in space are expanding. I get what you mean. This is just always the point I get hung up on. I just don't see how there needs to be a physical thing called "space" that accounts for these interactions because they all just sound like events to me. Sorry if I'm being obtuse about it, lol. I'm not trying to be. It's just there's certain things that I believe that I cannot make myself unbelieve. It's not that I can't change my mind. but there's some thing that hangs me on that belief and in order to eschew it, I have to be able to see why my hang up is not justified. I think out of all of the abstracts, space is the best candidate for not actually being an abstract. So I'll give you that.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Are you familiar with the Friedmann equations and Hubble's Law? Long story short, it shows our universe (space essentially) is expanding. It's calculated with recessional velocity.

If you're skeptical about space being between things, how would you explain light arcing around a gravitational curve in space? The bend in space actually stretches space (and light); it's demonstrated in spectral line displacements from red shifted light.

I agree that space may not have a tangible "mass", or whatever you'd want to call it, but it does directly interact and impact things contained within it. To me, this makes it a Type 1 existence because it exists and interacts with reality.

Thoughts?

-->
@killshot

what do you mean by "when space expands outward"?

To me, that sounds like motion. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm skeptical as to if there actually is "space" between things. Most of the gaps between us is filled with neutrinos just flying right through our body.

To me, what makes up "space" is define by the particles we see. when I see expansion, that just appears as particle interactions. That's always been my biggest problem with it is that space appears to only exist because things are filling it. So how do I know it's not just the result of particle interactions creating the illusion of space?

-->
@Athias

Welcome! We almost got the whole crew here now haha

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I agree and ....slightly..... disagree. I do concede it's a "gray" area/topic, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it, yet. That's why I threw it out there to pick your brain..

So I can't physically "grab" you a piece of space, but space does have a direct affect on things that I can grab you, like particles. For example, as space expands outwards, it displaces the spectral lines in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across it; it can also bend light as it travels through gravitational curves. Because space has a direct impact on particles, which do have physicality, I would argue it must exist, even though I cannot cut a piece off. It has real observable affects in reality.

Thoughts?

Unmoderated voting? Go to DDO, whiteflame doesn't moderate them anymore lol.

Athias. I probably shouldn't help you since you're going to vote against me, but in the spirit of fairness. All you need to do is highlight each main point and why it did or did not contribute to your decision then you have to weigh the arguments and state your reason for picking a certain side.

For sources, you have to specifically cite at least one source. You can't appeal to quantity, not saying you did, just stating that for measure. You have to explain why you think the sources impacted the debate.

For conduct, there has to be at least 1 forfeit round or you need to cite specific cases of conduct and why you think they're excessive.

I don't usually vote grammar, but I"m guessing it's along the same lings as sources and conduct.

You can put "tied in all others" when you don't award points and you don't have to explain. However, when you tie and argument point, you still have to explain it.

Hopefully this will help you vote better against me, lol. ;)

Happy voting.

More voters = Better

SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.

@Virtuoso: I did not appeal to quantity as far as the sources were concerned. I stated that Con substantiated his arguments with substantial sources. (I'm well aware that the number of sources in and of itself does not offer substance.) As for the argument point, I do not judge an argument by a standard of "agreement," but whether the logical connection between premise and conclusion is sound. I stated the reason Pro's argument was not convincing was that he abandoned his onus to the major premise of his inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical." Without this his entire argument falls apart because it's the major premise. And he failed to substantiate said premise. As for conduct, I did point out specific examples. If this does not constitute misconduct, then fair enough. But I did not know that the standard on which Conduct was awarded would be based on extremes, and not the relatives which the question "Who had better conduct?" implicates.

-->
@Athias

The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's

Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.

(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.

-->
@Athias

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct

RFD: Pro chose to argue by induction without substantiating any of his premises, especially the first inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical" (major premise.) Without this his series of sequential syllogisms fall apart. He then goes on to focus on particles and string theory, leaving his obligation to the onus he created in Round 1 unsatisfied. While Con does indulge the same focus on String Theory, he provides substantial arguments and sources to substantiate his contention. As for conduct, Pro mentions, "I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention," and "you're scared to even touch it with real logic..." etc. None of this has any place in a debate. For that, I am willing to award conduct to Con.

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

See above
*******************************************************************

Seriously, though thanks for the vote.

More voters = better.

SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.

Oh god it's Athias. Everybody run!!

-->
@killshot

spacetime existing is the biggest myth in all of physics. The second biggest myth is eleven dimensions.

-->
@killshot

right. so can you grab me a piece of space and hand it to me? Space is just what physical things occupy. There's even evidence to show that space isn't what we think it is because particles can ignore distance. So it's not a thing because you can't even have space without at least 2 objects to judge it and you can't have time without at least 3 objects. So how do they exist if viewing them is contingent upon particles?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Where does space fall in here? It's physical, because it has affects on physical things (like red-shifting light). It has particles in it, but space itself is not made of particles. Thoughts?

-->
@K_Michael

It's not because the light is ACTUALLY bent. I'm not perceiving the light wrong. The light is just coming in at a strange angle. The problem here is that you think we're seeing the spoon. we're not. We're seeing the light that comes from the spoon which makes a mold of it. However, it doesn't matter because we know it's the light and we adjust our brains for it by consciously adjusting how we treat the spoon.

The light is bent but the spoon is not. Your perception of reality is distorted.

-->
@K_Michael

Sure, if I stick a spoon in the water and it creates the illusion of bending. Are my eyes wrong or is the light actually bent?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

The difference between seeing a bent spoon and bent image of a star is that the spoon is actually bent, and the star is not. So the thing we perceive is not physically existent in the way that we perceive it.

-->
@K_Michael

That would be like saying a bent spoon was an illusion .

-->
@K_Michael

1. gravity is an event, not a thing and the things that are having gravity are physical.
2. Some physicists think that gravity is cause by a particle, although that really doesn't change the fact that the effect of gravity does not actually exist.
3. We are not seeing distorted light incorrectly. The brain is processing it correctly, but the light that is entering our eyes has been bent in advanced and we can even tell that it's bent and work around it, so this is far from an illusion. We're not falsely seeing light as bent. It's ACTUALLY bent.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

"Everything we observe is physical"
What about gravity distorting light? In other words, we perceive things incorrectly.
Hallucinations are another good example. False perceptions that are just as realistic as reality.

Votes plz.

-->
@Sparrow

cest la vie

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

It's cool mate. I get competitive too.

-->
@Sparrow

I realize in hindsight that I came off a bit too aggressive in that last statement. I had no malicious intent. It's just the way I debate and I only intend to attack ideas, not people. Just putting that out there.

-->
@Sparrow

My bad. C4 was reached using MPP. I forgot to write it the final time, lol.