Magic is a Waste of Time

---- Magic as a Word Redux ---- I'd like to start off by saying that my opponent's response was… uh… magical. But what do I mean in saying that anyway? Am I applauding his efforts? Am I amazed by the quality of his opening argument as a first-time debater? Am I impressed by his grammar and spelling? Am I implying that his debate skills are supernatural? Am I intentionally adding a vague, ambiguous tone to my statement? The reader is not sure. To counter my argument that many idioms including the word "magic" waste time, my opponent wrote that, "Hyperboles allow people to get a better understanding of the other people experiences more easily." This is not the case. In fact, I'd argue just the opposite: Idioms add a vague, ambiguous tone to statements. When someone states someone has a "magic touch", or that something "works like magic", the intended communication becomes distorted. My opponent cannot deny that idioms are mere substitutes for real language. And they are bad substitutes at that. It is much clearer to explain—even if only with a sentence or two—what someone means through more normal language. Even a simple "He knows what he is doing", or "This works well" are already clearer statements. Additionally, my opponent never denied that the word "magic" wastes time. He only went on to speculate whether or not the word "magic" (when used idiomatically) provides a clearer understanding. It doesn't. But even if it did, my opponent has conceded that "magic" wastes time. In other words, my opponent—in not addressing my argument—has agreed that the word "magic" wastes time. ---- All Deception is Bad Redux ---- I made the incorrect assumption that my opponent was not experienced enough to argue semantics and definitions. That said, I will agree with the definition my opponent has provided for "deception," "the act of giving misinformation or withholding information from another." I apologize. My opponent starts of his rebuttal by saying that my argument is a joke. It isn't. And I take great offence to his statement. Moreover, even if it was a joke, that statement alone, doesn't negate my point. I strongly question my opponent's attempt to deface and denigrate the value of my argument. Why does he include a valueless rebuttal that only serves to paint me as a clownster? I don't know. My opponent then goes on to state that audiences know that they are going to be deceived while attending a magic show. This is wrong, so wrong, on many levels. First, many children don't know. I can, as I am sure many in the audience can, recall wondering the truth in magic as children. So essentially, magicians manipulate the weaknesses of children's unperfected minds. Secondly, you can never be sure that you are being deceived. Otherwise, the term "deceived" wouldn't exist. Many magicians claim supernatural powers—they make the news sometimes—but do they? They probably don't. But. You can never prove they don't just as you can't prove they do. Case in point: There will always be some uncertainty involving truth in magic. Last and most important, an infallible ability to detect deception would still be entirely irrelevant. Rape and rape under the influence of a sleeping pill are equally bad… no? My opponent then goes on to claim that magic can do "good" things as well. To prove this claim, my opponent enlists the imagined example of a group of people, stressed out from work, being relieved from magic. Two points in response. First, the German people, for a short period of time anyway, were united under Hitler. Hitler used his eloquent speaking style, and deceitful cunning to trick the Germans into following him. Point being, temporary happiness through lies isn't necessarily a good thing. My second point in response is that this supposedly "good magic" is still, even if it were "good", a waste of time. Imagine all the potential contributions that magicians could have made to the world. If it is indeed true that some magicians are also renowned mathematicians, then imagine all the problems that could have been solved by those magicians/mathmeticians had they not spent their time performing trivial lies. As for the relief of the masses, surely magic is not the only thing that relieves stress. Music, art, debate.org, sports, television, video games, socialization, masturbation, sex, and dance are all things that are much more "relieving" than magic. My opponent's claim that magic is the only way to relieve stress is simply nuts. My argument—that all deception is bad—still stands. (By the way, I'd like to highlight that my opponent has admitted that magic is often times used for bad purposes. "…some people do use deceptions parallel to those used by magicians in ways that are counterproductive or even malevolent…") ---- Magic Serves No Useful Purpose -- My opponent begins his argument by saying that many magicians also use their logical abilities in the field of mathematics. I have already countered this. However, I would like to address the following statement: "There is a quote somewhere of the magic of ‘today' being the sciences of tomorrow" No. There is just no feasible way pulling a rabbit out of a hat can help the field of genetic engineering for rabbits. There is just no way cutting a plant by cutting its shadows can lead to teleportation. There is just no way escaping from a coffin can lead to… um. There is just no way cutting a pretty lady in half can help the discovery of a sharper metal. The age for magic's contributions to science is long gone. Sorry. You bear the burden of proof in that statement. So prove it. As of now, my argument—that magic serves no useful purpose—still stands. ---- Conclusion ---- I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and to thank the audience for taking the time to read this. Formalities aside, the resolution still stands. Magic is a waste of time. I have proven this through three undefeated (including one unchallenged) contentions. I have defeated all of my opponent's (rather unclear) arguments. Therefore, I urge a PRO vote.