Brief Rebuttals
Before offering my official closing statements and debate summary, I would like to take a moment to very briefly offer a handful of rebuttals to my
opponent's above post.
Rebuttal 1
My opponent states:
Throughout this debate we have shown how Rudolph’s red and shiny nose is working, a – in my opinion – very realistic opportunity for an
eternal light bulb. The phenomenon is a kind of chemical reaction, which is called bioluminescence.
Yet earlier in the debate, my opponent mentions another contributing factor in Rudolph's glowing nose as being 'magic.' Once again, what works for
Rudolph does
not work for us. While she claims we could easily reproduce what makes him tick to create eternal light bulb technology, I'm left
wondering how 'magic' would come into play for creating eternal light bulbs.
We simply
cannot use Rudolph's nose as a comparison for future technology, as I have shown repeatedly throughout this debate, but we surely
couldn't do it if one of the necessary components was 'magic.' Therefore I must disagree with my opponent when she claims eternal light bulbs are a
'very realistic opportunity.' Basing the technology on the Rudolph's 'magic' simply is not feasible and not possible.
Rebuttal 2
When asked if it is acceptable for the government to mandate the types of bulbs its citizens use even at the expense of their health, my opponent
replied:
In my opinion it is not wrong.
My opponent is mixing the duty of mankind and of our government in caring for future generations by saving energy resources and possible health
risks.
We have to differentiate clearly between these two topics.
Once again, I must strongly disagree with my opponent. Her reasoning basically boils down to letting people suffer or be exposed to negative side
effects of the eternal bulb technology for the sake of the environment (And we cannot forget we don't even know if eternal light bulbs would even
benefit the environment. They could be the same or even worse for all we know). I will say it one last time: As much of an advocate I am of being good
stewards of our environment or of 'thinking Green,' I do not believe it should be at the expense of human health.
Rebuttal 3
My opponent then claims:
She shows a consistently lack of visions in this case.
Actually, 'visions' are exactly what I am looking at. Sadly, trends do not indicate beneficial visions but instead, nightmares. Health risks,
economic impacts, governmental tyranny. Etc. It would be nice if every vision was a beautiful one but in the case of eternal light bulbs, the
'vision' is not pretty and I must be a realist and provide an accurate case.
Summarizing the Contrasts Made by Myself Throughout This Debate
The topic of our debate is:
As Rudolph's Nose Never Burns Out, We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever.
The very nature of the debate topic demands that both positions make a comparison (for the pro side) and a contrast (for the con side) to Rudolph's
nose in order to debate either the merits (pro position) or drawbacks (con position) to the eternal light bulb. That is exactly what I have done.
Throughout the course of the debate I have made many contrasts between Rudolph and the North Pole way of life vs. light bulb technology and our world.
A summary list includes:
Rudolph's Nose: Organic.
Light Bulbs: Artificial.
Rudolph's Nose: Naturally and magically powered.
Light Bulbs: Artificially and realistically powered.
Rudolph's Nose: Safe and harmless.
Light Bulbs: Pose health risks and contain harmful elements.
Santa as Leader: Benevolent and caring.
Our Governments: Tyrannical and aloof.
North Pole Toy Workforce: Jobs are secure.
Our Light bulb Workforce: Jobs are insecure and thousands of layoffs are occurring.
My position depended on the contrasts and as you can see, many contrasts were made. This was done to show that just because something works fine and
dandy up at the North Pole and with Rudolph, absolutely does not mean we are functioning under the same circumstances down south. As I said in a
previous post, in this case, what is good for the goose, or reindeer, is not good for the gander, or us people.
On the other hand, I have seen my opponent make no comparisons in support of her position.
This will be the most important statement contained within this entire debate so it will be bolded:
The very way the debate topic is posed requires us to use the logic that because 'X' works for Rudolph, 'X' should work for humans. But I have
clearly proven throughout this debate that Rudolph's nose and our technology/world are polar opposites to each other. The assumed logic
of the debate topic's question has been proven wrong.
Summarizing My Case and My Opponent's Lack of a Case.
It should be somewhat obvious to the reader than my position in this debate was most certainly the hardest to defend and fight for. After all, at
first thought, an eternal light bulb sounds like a fantastic invention. However, I brought some things to light in an effort to show trends and
evidence as we shift towards longer-lasting bulbs, which could eventually cross over if the hypothetical eternal light bulb became a reality.
My main arguments may be summed up as follows, using trends as indications:
The longer a light bulb is designed to last:
1). The more harmful it becomes to humans.
2). The more dangerous components it contains.
3). The more caution is used in disposal.
4). The more energy is used in production.
5). The more jobs are lost, in increments of thousands.
6). The more governments tighten their control on the people.
Whether or not you agree with me on the severity of any or all of the above, one thing must be said: I am the only one who actually presented a case.
While my opponent certainly had the advantage going into this debate due to having the more defensible position, she forfeited that advantage by
failing to:
1). Build a case of her own, instead only opting to respond to my case.
2). Present positive comparisons between Rudolph and the hypothetical eternal light bulb.
3). Tell us any sort of benefits to the eternal light bulb.
While her opening post painted a charming picture of Rudolph's Christmas narrative and while her first case post discussed the fact Rudolph's nose
is natural (something I never denied, in fact I mentioned the same thing because it is beneficial to my case), neither post consisted of explaining to
the reader why the eternal bulb is a beneficial invention. Her two following posts contained nothing but rebuttals to my case (which I in turn
refuted) and answers to any Socratic questions I may have asked.
In short, as great of a pleasure it was to read my opponent's posts that teemed over with Christmas cheer, the fact remains: My opponent never
presented a case nor did she introduce any unique arguments into the debate.
Tying It All Together.
So throughout my case I have contrasted Rudolph's nose and life in general up at the North pole to our technology and world down here. This in itself
completely castrates the assumption of the debate topic that what works for Rudolph works for us. My opponent never provided any similarities or
comparisons to Rudolph and us in order to substantiate her position.
I have also presented several possible negative side effects in the realm of health, environment, government, and economics by using trends as an
indication. My opponent presented no case of her own but instead focused on pleasant Christmas narratives and rebuttals of my case, which were later
refuted by myself.
At this time, I can say with certainty, '
We cannot use Rudolph or his nose as any indication that we should have eternal light
bulbs.'
Final Thank Yous.
Unfortunately, this post is the last post for this debate. I use the word 'unfortunately' because this debate with Orange Light has been one of the
most enjoyable interactions for me on ATS. Although the holiday spirit flowing throughout this debate was part of that fun, most of the credit for my
enjoyment must go to my wonderful opponent, her Christmas cheer, quick wit, and engaging thoughts on this topic.
I thoroughly enjoyed our exchange and I am looking forward to her future contributions to this forum! Orange Light, I hope you enjoyed the [sleigh]
ride as much as myself and your first try at ATS debates was a good experience for you!
Thank you again to all viewers, the judges, and to Semper. Merry Christmas to everyone!
that’s real world logic
too. 
