The Universe is Real

Pro cannot have any rebuttals Con’s round 1 simply states. “Round 4: Final rebuttals (no new points)” and to note, there was no agreement that Con was allowed to make amendments to the original debate agreement. You failed to specify Pro could not rebut rebuttals made in round 4, you also did not say Pro was required to respond to points raised in the previous round. This entire post is a rebuttal to round 4 rebuts. A rebut as defined on the google define search is “claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.” My entire post falls within this definition (I will scratch out quotes that I’m rebutting). Also if you say rebuttals and points are the same, then technically you yourself failed to uphold your end of the agreement as your “rebuttals” are technically new points, it doesn’t matter if it was rebutting round 3, it does specifically state “no new points” regardless of what round your rebutting. a character in a dream would be able to post a debate response in a universe inside their own dream. The same goes for the voters voting. Nope, even If it was their own dream they couldn’t vote. You can’t read inside a dream, so you can’t really vote on DDO. Go to sleep and read debate topics, never going to happen. It’s not even possible. You can even try lucid dreaming, not going to happen, dreams has its limits. Pro's response was unprofessional Unprofessional? This may come as a shock to you, but I’m not a professional, I don’t get paid to debate you. As far as I know, no one on DDO gets paid to debate anyone (Correct me if I’m wrong, I would certainly like to get paid) You demand me to act like a professional, but you don’t treat me like a professional because you don’t pay me. Why should I be required to submit to your wishes when you don’t treat me like one? (which, by the way, refers to THIS universe, not any universe in a universe in a universe, etc) You say things like “this universe” or “Universe which we reside”, you do know that there is no other universe right? One can prove this false by looking up the definition for universe, it means “all existing matter and space considered as a whole” Note the word “all” Nothing can be outside of “all”. There can be no other universe, it’s not even possible. he began by crude, immature, and unprofessional mockery of my side of the debate. So? Your entire case mocks reality. For saying this is not real mocks my intelligence that it is real. For If I showed say a pencil, you would mock the evidence by saying you can’t prove this is not a dream. So I choose to go a different route and play along with the assumption that I’m not real to point out the absurdity in it. Pro treats my arguments as if I am saying that the universe is imagined. Yes, I treat your arguments that you’re saying that this is imagined. And there aren’t an infinite amount of possibilities, there are only 2, it’s either imagined or not imagined. There might be an infinite amount of “variations” to the same 2 possibilities, but only 2, it is imagined or not. If you explore the imagined, then you have to have an imaginer, so something is unimagined (which makes something real!). And obviously if it is not imagined, then I easily win. Whichever possibility you roll with the universe is real, the difference is that you’re dreaming in the real universe, or you’re not dreaming and it’s still real. There is a group of scientists/historians in the distant future The problem with that example, is that you use the term “reality”. If its reality, that means it’s real. It doesn’t matter if it’s simulated, or not simulated, if its reality it’s real. It doesn’t matter if its been running infinitely. If it’s imagined, then simply it requires an imaginer (something unimagined) which does follow a real universe for something unimagined. Another problem is that, there is no evidence to prove that it’s even possible. It’s only a claim that it’s possible, I say his claim to it is entirely imaginary. You can’t replicate that evidence in “this universe” as con would call it. So Con can’t prove his own arguments. What is brought up without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. My position can show real things (e.g. toys, guns, voters, etc.) His position can’t show anything at all for any of his arguments. Because of Pro's lack of professionalism, lack of proof that the universe is real or not, and lack of spell check, vote Con. No, I did provide proof. Voters. As I stated they can’t really vote without a real universe. I still hold to that. You can easily falsify it. Imagine voting Con in your mind, and then check to see if you actually voted on DDO. No matter how many times you vote in your mind, you will not be able to vote on DDO, because you’re voting inside your imagination, not really voting on DDO. Now I say stop imagining voting on DDO and really vote Pro to know that I’m right, cool ain’t it? My burden of proof is as lite as a feather for me. For proof that the universe is real one simply needs to pull out a bird’s feather and show it. Because of the media of which this debate occurs in I can’t feasiably show it directly (without using photos), so I choose voters as proof themselves in place of feathers. If you refuse to believe in the voters (saying they are possibly unreal), I’m sorry, I can’t help a fool who wishes to believe his folly over reality. Seeing isn’t believing but believing is seeing as the proverb goes.