Mass Refutation Debate #1

Again, I hope we can have a lot of fun here. = Refutations = 1- P1: a. Color isn't a concrete concept, it's a perception unique to each individual. What I interpret as blue may be what another person interprets as yellow. Therefore it is entirely possible that every color that is blue for you, is yellow for me. P2: a. When my opponent states that "Blue is a color that is blue. " he indicates that there are other colors which are blue as well. Where this not the case, then my opponent would not have written "is a", he would have simply said "is". b. The word "a" indicates that blue being blue is a single option out of many. Extending across my refutations on P1, we can see clearly that yellow may be blue. C: a. Blue could very possible be yellow based on how two people see a specific color. Furthermore because my opponent's C is an absolute statement, the fact that there is any possibility of blue being yellow at all refutes the argument. b. To the blind color doesn't exist at all. Meaning that this argument doesn't really mean anything. 2- P1: a. Based on the philosophy of [1] Quantum Suicide everyone has the possibility of being immortal b. You never warrant that all humans are mortal in the first place. Just because there hasn't been an immortal human yet, does not mean there will never be one. c. I've never died, therefore so far as I know I am immortal. P2: a. You cannot prove that Socrates was a human being as you never personally knew Socrates. b. You do not have Socrates' DNA which would be necessary to warrant this argument. Otherwise for all we know Socrates could have been an alien. C: a. My opponent fails to prove that Socrates was human. b. Quantum Suicide refutes my opponent's argument entirely [1] . http://science.howstuffworks.com... 3- P1: a. A week, while commonly accepted as being seven days long, is not universally accepted as being seven days long. b. A School-week or Work-week can be anywhere from Less than one day long to six days long, and can lasts anywhere between less than one hour to more than seventeen hours long (depending on the school attended and classes taken). c. A metric week is ten days long[2] P2: a. A day is actually only a little over twenty-three hours and fifty six minutes long[3] C: a. Even under the commonly accepted seven day week, a week is only 167 hours and 50 minutes long b. There is no set standard for how long a school or work week is. c. A metric week is 239 hours and 20 minutes long [2] . http://zapatopi.net... [3] . http://plus.maths.org... 4- Definition- 1. [4]Semantic: (semantically) with regard to meaning; "semantically empty messages" P1: a. God is omnipotent, but not necessarily capable of doing everything. God can only do those things which fall under his perfect nature, meaning anything imperfect or would constitute something God couldn't do. Your very basis is faulty. b. Because the very basis of this argument is faulted no other part can be considered. P2: a. Once again, God is omnipotent, and all-powerful. That does not mean however that God can do everything. b. Even if the first basis offered by my opponent is accepted, this isn't a legitimate argument. It's only snappy wordplay, making it nothing more than semantic[4] rhetoric. C: a. God is Omnipotent, but cannot necessarily do everything. b. My opponent's link is semantic. [4] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 5- Definition- 2. [5] Begging the question: "Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. " P1: a. When my opponent uses the word "if" he sets himself up for the possibility of premise one being falsifiable. b. Because premise one is falsifiable, premise b is either equally set up for falsification, or exponentially so. P2: a. There is no warrant to believe that premise 1 is true b. This argument begs the question of either premise being true. Meaning that both P1 and P2 depend on each other to be proven true before either one can be proven true. C: a. The term "if" makes the argument inherently falsifiable. b. The lack of warrant in P2 throws the argument the window. c. The fact that my opponent P1 and P2 begs the question makes them circular. This would be exactly the same thing as saying that "Santa is real because a child's parent's told them so" , and they know that Santa is real because "Santa told the child's parents that he was real. " [5] . http://www.nizkor.org... = Closing Statements = These where all wonderful arguments, and I loved refuting them! I eagerly await your next sex of arguments.