Round 1: Skyfloating vs visible_villain: "It's All A Fairly Tale"

page: 1
12

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "The Fairy Tales of your youth are actually recounts of when magic was alive."

Skyfloating will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
visible_villian will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
________________________________________




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Welcome to Wonderland

We are such stuff As dreams are made on; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players;

- William Shakespeare


Imagination is the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses, and the action or process of forming such images or concepts. It helps provide meaning to experience and understanding to knowledge; it is a fundamental facility through which people make sense of the world,[1][2][3] and it also plays a key role in the learning process.[1][4] A basic training for imagination is the listening to storytelling (narrative),[1][5] in which the exactness of the chosen words is the fundamental factor to 'evoke worlds'.[6]
1

The Fairy Tales of your youth are actually recounts of when magic was alive.

Magic was alive in the sense that people believed in the supernatural. Later on the institutions of education tried to label it all as "superstition" and build a purely mechanistic view of the world. But to some Magic is still alive in that fictional story-telling is an important tool for inspiration, dream, pleasure and education. What was once called fairy tale is nowadays called "fantasy and science-fiction". A recent thread of mine actually does argue the importance of fictional and magical thinking: Sci-Fi as an educational tool.

"Magic was alive" can also refer to fairy tales actually being based on real events. Believe it or not, some researchers do indeed theorize paranormal events being induced by strong belief or by hallucinogenic drugs or metaphysical phenomena. Some even theorize that fairy tales are archetypal reflections of hidden aspects of the collective consciousness. We will be examining all of this throughout the debate.

"The Fairy Tales of your youth are actually recounts of when magic was alive".

The debate topic assigned to me and my respected opponent allows me to argue on behalf of the imaginative and miraculous and invites my opponent to argue on behalf of the rational and mechanistic. I look forward to it.

Socratic Questions:

1. Are you arguing that Magic was never alive?

2. Are you arguing that miracles dont exist?

3. Are you arguing that all fairy tales are only Imagination and have no basis whatsoever in or connection to reality?

4. Are you arguing that Imagination is meaningless?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Preamble



About 18 months ago, having had the arguably extreme misfortune of somehow landing on a certain website, not altogether innocently I will freely admit, and during a typical period of lunch time web-surfing at the code factory, my impending plunge into the dark and bottomless void of conspiracy theorism was finally consummated.

Like a lemming to the cliff, like a moth to the flame ...

But, I digress ...

Thereafter, each day at high noon, and soon enough after that, even when I should have been doing something much more productive ( and, eventually, like usually most of the day, of course after having first completed the compulsory morning e-mail check, just to maintain appearances ), I progressed ever deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of that fearsome and twilight world which is populated by only the most terrifying of forms, and which is defined merely by the fewest of dots suggesting the most hellish images of those beings which populate those unknown realms of the collective unknown, which are referred to simply, in the vernacular of the day, as "conspiracies."

And there I found myself, consumed by a giant sucking sound, as it were, of some great and overwhelming whirlpool, impossible to resist, which drew me ever more deeply into the realm of forbidden viewpoints and, by all accounts, unacceptably paranoid thinking.

Perhaps you've been there ... and were fortunate enough to have escaped, as I have been.

Or so I thought ...

Only by some fortuitous and entirely undeserved quirk of fate, of course, having become unemployed in the meantime, but that's fine, since I hated those b******s anyway, I was for some reason unbeknownst to myself, rescued from this lamentable fate after only six or eight months ...

Having miraculously passed through, unscathed, more or less, that dark night in which lurk everywhere terrifying conspiracies, without any significant permanent injury to speak of, much to my unending relief and boundless joy, I nonetheless found my feet finally placed at long last upon a much firmer and brighter ground of shining milk and honey, that land in which reside those happiest of beings, the coincidence theorists.

Yet, even after all this undeserved good fortune, I find my eternal soul is still gravely at risk, and no doubt for good reason, since, if anything, I have often missed the mark ...

So, now here I stand, trembling, at the threshold of my first ATS debate. May the Gods ( and the judges, as well ... *ahem* ) have mercy!

Egads !! It must be time for my opening statement ...

But first, a word to my honorable opponent who has shown great compassion and skill in her opening statement -

Thank you for your kindness!

Om Svasti !

May all phenomena conspire to assist us in our noble tasks !

Actually the Tibetans would have pronounced this spell as, Om Svasti Hung !, but that's just how they are ...

So, moving right along -

 

Opening Statement



Framing the debate at hand, we have - "The Fairy Tales of your youth are actually recounts of when magic was alive".

My opponent's role in this drama is to argue in favor of the claim and mine is to argue against.

From the statement of our topic, in terms of its literal syntax, based on the following,


... when magic was alive.


it would seem that the success of the pro position depends upon arguing successfully that, 'Magic was once alive, but is now dead, and fairy tales remind us of those former times'.

Be that as it may, I will await my honorable opponent's clarification on this matter before further frying, in detail, or not, this particular fish ...

In fact, I will later on frame a Socratic question to establish her precise position on the matter, in observance of the form of this honorable debate.

But first, to answer my opponent's SQ's -

 

Answers to Socratic Questions




SQ1.
Are you arguing that Magic was never alive?

No.



SQ2
Are you arguing that miracles don't exist?

No.


SQ3
Are you arguing that all fairy tales are only Imagination and have no basis whatsoever in or connection to reality?

No.



SQ4
Are you arguing that Imagination is meaningless?

No.

 

My opponent has claimed


Magic was alive in the sense that people believed in the supernatural.

Hence, the following SQ's seem to be in order -

 

Opening Socratic Questions -



SQ1 - Has magic ever been possible?

SQ2 - Is magic now dead?

SQ3 - Would a miracle be a magical phenomenon?

SQ4 - Are fairy tales the means by which children can learn important lessons, or morals of life, independent of whether or not they are magical tales?

 

Conclusion of Opening Statement



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Namaste. It is so much more pleasant to fight a villain that is visible than an elusive one.

To answer all of your socratic questions in one sentence: It depends on how you define magic, how you define death, how you define miracles, and how you define fairly tales. So I see that if I dont nail some definition this debate will be a nonsensical exchange of vaguenesses.

So for the sake of a good debate I will define my debate side "magic was real" as in "magical creatures, abilities and fairy tales are based on distant memories of real events". That is of course, the most difficult position one could choose to argue here, but it should prove entertaining for both you and the readers.

______________________________________________

Do fairy tales have a basis in reality?

Do fairy tale creates have any basis in reality? Was magic, a long time ago, real? Did werewolves, dwarves, Unicorns, etc. exist? The researchers of the field "Cryptozoology" think so. One of many examples is the Unicorn...


Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn
Source



This 3000 year old seal found in the Indus Valley by Archaeologist Ernest Mackay, depicts a Unicorn or a "one-horned-animal" Source

The Unicorn is also mentioned in the Koran. And it is also mentioned in the Bible:


An animal called the Re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם‎) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength.

This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu...

This animal was often depicted...with only one horn visible.


This animal is apparently also known in Asia and is called "Kirin" there and Qilin in China.

Check out the encyclopedic entry linked and you`ll see that the Unicorn was no stranger to many more cultures.

Considering the widespread belief in the Unicorn, maybe this "fairy tale" may indeed point to a time when that magic was alive.

An ancient cave painting:


Source

Coming up in the next posts:

Dwarves, Werewolves, Fairies, Ogres and Time Travel. Stay tuned.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I would like to take this opportunity to correct a most egregious breach of etiquette which was inexcusably committed in my opening statement. And that is, simply stated, the omission of any mention of the organizers of this contest, and an appropriate expression of gratitude for their most laudable efforts in bringing together this praiseworthy event.

Thank you to both MemoryShock and semperfortis for doing a first-rate job in setting all this up. Though I must admit I can't imagine all the footwork and heavy lifting which must go into arranging an event like this debate contest, I know it's safe to say a significant effort was involved.

So thanks to the organizers, as well as to all the other contestants, and especially to my own most honorable opponent, Skyfloating, for all coming together to make possible what promises to be a very enjoyable contest.

IMHO, Well done one and all !

Now to the business at hand ...
 

1st Reply



Quoting from my own opening statement, we have -


... it would seem that the success of the pro position depends upon arguing successfully that, 'Magic was once alive, but is now dead, and fairy tales remind us of those former times'.

Be that as it may, I will await my honorable opponent's clarification on this matter before further frying, in detail, or not, this particular fish ...

In fact, I will later on frame a Socratic question to establish her precise position on the matter, in observance of the form of this honorable debate.


And now the first part of my opponent's reply -


To answer all of your socratic questions in one sentence: It depends on how you define magic, how you define death, how you define miracles, and how you define fairly tales. So I see that if I dont nail some definition this debate will be a nonsensical exchange of vaguenesses.


Nonsense, colleague !

You may refresh your understanding of these terms, which are in common usage for all English speaking people, by hitting the Webster's site, just as well as I can.

I encourage you to do so. The meanings of these four words are in no way obscure or open to interpretation - just look them up, for Pete's sake !

Methinks your aim is to muddy the waters, as it were. Why so? Are your arguments perhaps in disarray? Your position on the issue at hand unclear even to yourself ? It certainly is to me ...

These last three questions are not in any way Socratic ones, but are merely rhetorical. There is little need to pronounce answers which are no doubt obvious to all.

As I am taking this contest and my opponent seriously, it seems only fair that my opponent should do the same regarding my arguments and SQ's.

Moving on ...

The definition my opponent does have in hand, however strange it may seem, now follows -


... I will define my debate side "magic was real" as in "magical creatures, abilities and fairy tales are based on distant memories of real events".


Allow me to observe with all due respect that the subject of our debate has already been defined by those who assigned it to us.

It may be constructive at this point to emphasize that any spin my honorable colleague chooses to put on the orginal verbiage is merely her own discretionary interpretation which may or may not have any relation to what the original verbiage of the assigned topic actually means.

This, in fact, as I have now already mentioned several times, was the intent of my four Socratic questions - to determine precisely how my opponent does view the topic, but, alas, the opportunity was declined and no meaningful answers were provided, thus stalling the forward progression of this contest.

Regretfully, I must say that until my respected colleague chooses to answer my Socratic questions directly, seriously and meaningfully, as I have answered her questions, the progress of our debate is virtually at a standstill.

I quote from the ground rules and guidelines statement as set forth in the OP of this thread -


When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

 

Proceeding now with the critique of the remainder of my opponent's first reply -


Do fairy tales have a basis in reality?

Do fairy tale [creatures](?) have any basis in reality? Was magic, a long time ago, real? Did werewolves, dwarves, Unicorns, etc. exist? The researchers of the field "Cryptozoology" think so. One of many examples is the Unicorn...


It appears my opponent seeks to demonstrate the existence of living magic in olden days by building a case for the actual existence of living mythical beings.

The manner in which my opponent proceeds is faulty and may be refuted.

The refutation proceeds as follows - Merely because one may find anecdotal evidence in the historic record of mythical creatures, this in no way proves anything at all about whether or not said mythical beings were magical or not.

Secondly, if indeed at some point in the dim recesses of history Unicorns did populate the forests of Europe and elsewhere, why should that make them magical? Why could not the Unicorn have been simply like a horse with a single astounding horn, exactly in the same way one might describe a Zebra as being like a horse with astounding stripes?

Hence, if a Unicorn were a magical being, then this is equivalent to saying a Zebra is also a magical being. Of course, to claim a Zebra is a magical being is absurd, thus the Unicorn, if it ever actually existed, was not necessarily a magical being either. QED.

Even beyond all that, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever found a Unicorn skeleton or fossile anywhere, so there is no hard evidence this species ever actually did exist. All my opponent has been able to produce as possible proof are anecdotal examples of a cave painting and some hieroglyphs which may or may not be images of a Unicorn.

My own sense is that the hieroglyph represents a one-horned bull rhino ( unfortunately all I have to show is a female, I think, but for the obvious differences in external plumbing, the effect is identical ),



while the cave painting is probably an image of a now extinct species of waterbuck or oryx with two forward facing horns.




 

Conclusion of 1st Reply




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
A Confession

In respect to my opponent, the readers and myself I´ll admit that after my opening post I had not a clue which topic I was arguing so I sent Forum Moderator semperfortis a U2U asking "What do you MEAN?" He explained that it means arguing for the reality of the creatures and events in fairy tales. That is why I adjusted my second post accordingly. I will therefore just stick to showing how some elements of fairy tales may really be based on real events, real creatures and distant memories of "a time when magic was real". And so I ask the debate judges to judge this debate by whether I succeeded in this interesting endeavour or not. I invite my opponent to pose fresh Socractic Questions based on the debate definition I am admitting to.

Thank you.




___________________________________________________________


Werewolves basis in Reality

My opponent did a good job of pointing out that descriptions and depictions of Unicorns may have been referring to other animals. Of course this does not explain what then animals such as the Japanese Kilin actually are. There are other words for horses and horned bulls.

He will have even more of a difficulty denying the case for real Werewolves. The link provided leads readers to the picture of someone suffering Hypertrichosis. I am not posting the picture here because someone growing werewolves hair all over his face is not the most pleasant sight.

The main reason Werewolves may refer to real beings rather than only fairly tales is because reports of them are widespread all across the globe. That would be the main line of reasoning here...just as with Unicorns.

15-16th Century Europe not only witnessed witch hunts but also werewolf hunts. This was quite a common thing. The abovementioned source speaks of 30 000 accounts of werewolves in France alone during the 15th Century.

Across the ocean the Najavo-People knew of a "human in wolves clothing" which they called "Mai-Cob".

In native Haiti the werewolf is called "red eyes".

The fairy-tale like ability to shapeshift into an animal is today, in which "the magic is lost" termed a clinical illness and a delusion: Lycanthropy


Clinical lycanthropy is defined as a rare psychiatric syndrome which involves a delusion that the affected person can or has transformed into an animal, or that he or she is an animal[1]. Its name is connected to the mythical condition of lycanthropy, a supernatural affliction in which people are said to physically shapeshift into wolves. The word zoanthropy is also sometimes used for the delusion that one has turned into an animal in general and not specifically a wolf[2]


__________________________________________

On to adressing my opponents points:




Merely because one may find anecdotal evidence in the historic record of mythical creatures, this in no way proves anything at all about whether or not said mythical beings were magical or not.


In the middle ages beings such as Unicorns and Werewolves are seen as magical. From a modern day view they are not (except for children). It is in this sense that "magic is no longer alive".



SQ4 - Are fairy tales the means by which children can learn important lessons, or morals of life, independent of whether or not they are magical tales?


Yes children can learn important lessons for life from fairy tales. Fairy tales always contain some form of magic or what is perceived as magic.




why should that make them magical? Why could not the Unicorn have been simply like a horse with a single astounding horn


Yes, precisiley. But this was what the Forum Mod was aiming at when setting up the topic: "Magic was alive" means "These creatures really existed and are not merely clouds of fairy tale".

Position 1: "The fairy tales of your youth are completely made up".

Position 2 (my position): "The fairy tales of your youth are recounts of a time when magic was alive".

Back to you.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Reaction to the Confession - An Unexpected Visit


Roughly half an hour or so after my praiseworthy opponent made his most recent post, just about exactly the time it would take one ( or two ) to reach my doorstep from the the hallowed grounds of the very venerable Broken Skull and Crushed Collarbones Dojo, the residence, as it happens, of several associates and friends of mine, my humble and unassuming abode was honored by a most unexpected visit by two old and trusted colleagues who also happen to reside at the very same aforementioned very venerable place, and as fate would have it, have already been introduced to the Fight Club Pub by virtue of a previous post. Both were arrayed in the jet black regalia of their order, only thin slits in the dark fabric of their head dress revealing their fearsome eyes, and complete with various blunt and sharp edged devices which are their particular specialities, all neatly at rest in their respective holsters, sheaths and harnesses, some visible and others, no doubt well concealed.

The message they had for me was quite clear and they presented it in no uncertain terms.

Simply put, they informed me that if I wished to avoid further discussions with them on this very same issue, most certainly invloving use of aforementioned various blunt and sharp edged devices which are their particular specialities, however no longer neatly at rest in their respective holsters, sheaths and harnesses, then I had better listen up and listen good ! According to them, and I have no reason to doubt their veracity, this debate currently underway, a contest of mind and skill, if you will, between myself and the esteemed fighter, Skyfloating, who actually happens to be not a woman but a man, as I have recently learned, is being closely observed by certain members of the Upper Dojo Management and, "they were well aware of what was going on!"

My visitors continued by saying, "under no circumstances was I to submit to my opponent's slippery underhanded tactics", their words, not my own, I can assure everyone reading this, by, "agreeing to his proposal that we proceed with the debate solely according to his unilateral terms."

Perhaps as a tip of the hat to me, but based on recent experience I highly doubt it, they went on to say, "we think your interpretation of the topic is just as valid as your [multiple expletives deleted] opponent, and if you back down now without a fight we will be meeting again soon for further discussions!"

With that they both abruptly turned and left. The dog was absolutely terrified. She ran and hid under the bed. And she's still there now, wimpering softly from time to time. But, as for me, I was not scared at all. I've known these honorable gentlement for a long time and am used to their ways. On the other hand, I have never known them to issue empty threats ...

So, after having only three days ago returned to a diet which allows a small pittance of solid food, and almost completely off crutches except for an hour or two in the mornings after rising from my night's rest, while at the same time being the primary breadwinner both for my wife and myself, I feel I have no choice but to comply with the demands of my two honorable friends, however unreasonable they may be, who spoke not just for themselves but also for other more senior Dojo Members who shall, of necessity, since I've never met them, remain nameless.

Though it is my own nature and personal inclination to go with flow as they say, preferring to always take measures which lead to peace instead of escalating conflict, whenever possible, it appears that in this particular case, through no fault of my own, I must follow a course which under more ordinary circumstances I would prefer to avoid.

I am sorry, but my hands are tied !

 

2nd Reply


First, the matter of an alleged explanatory u2u revealing certain insights into the mysteries, at least for my esteemed opponent, and possibly for myself as well, of our assigned topic -


I sent Forum Moderator semperfortis a U2U asking "What do you MEAN?" He explained that it means arguing for the reality of the creatures and events in fairy tales.


Since my esteemed opponent has opened the door to discussion of the contents of a private u2u between himself and a forum moderator, it is only fair to ask, "is that all he said?"

For the edification of both myself and the readers at large, please post the actual full text of his comments concerning our mutual topic. I am sure it would shed some much needed light on said topic.

Not to beat a dead horse, but only to strengthen my argument for revealing the complete text of the moderator's comments on our topic, I quote my opponent's further mention of the alleged contents of this perhaps critical u2u -


... this was what the Forum Mod was aiming at when setting up the topic: "Magic was alive" means "These creatures really existed and are not merely clouds of fairy tale".


As someone once said, "show me!" Please back up your claims with the actual text of the mod's comments.
 


Moving on now to the zombie-like issue of my first set of SQ's ( zombie-like because it just won't die - get it ?
) ) -


I invite my opponent to pose fresh Socractic Questions based on the debate definition I am admitting to.


As explained above, in this matter my hands are now tied. I thank you for answering SQ4, but SQ1, SQ2 and SQ3 still remain unanswered. A simple, "yes," or, "no," will do nicely for all three.

 

Now, the matter of the Werewolf -


The link provided leads readers to the picture of someone suffering Hypertrichosis. I am not posting the picture here because someone growing werewolves hair all over his face is not the most pleasant sight.


Come now, colleague, he is actually quite handsome, except for the unsightly pelt of thick human hair which covers his forehead and cheeks, and, well there's quite a lot on his perfectly shaped human nose too. Interestingly, his ears, quite human in appearance, boast of no hair whatsoever. The anatomy of his upper body, including chest, neck and face all appear completely normal for a young, healthy man, except of course, for all that hair.

It has been said, "a picture is worth a thousand words," so here goes -



I have to say, the young man, that is to say the gentleman on the left, appears absolutely human, albeit with an overabundance of facial hair, but, heck, he probably gets some dates ( as long as he shaves really thoroughly beforehand, I guess ). And, besides theres always, Nair® ...

Moving right along ...


The main reason Werewolves may refer to real beings rather than only fairly tales is because reports of them are widespread all across the globe.

emphasis added


Evidently the operative word here is, "may", which of course automatically admits to the possibility of, "may not". My opponent is claiming absolutely nothing here beyond what everyone already knows - that is to say there are many legends of werewolves and many who believe them. Many others do not, as well, and his arguments here do nothing to change that.

 

And now, of course due to certain ultimatums recieved unexpectedly earlier in the day, some spoken, others not so, which scared my dog so much she is still under the bed wimpering, we have from my opening statement -


... it would seem that the success of the pro position depends upon arguing successfully that, 'Magic was once alive, but is now dead, and fairy tales remind us of those former times'.


And my opponent's corresponding statement, quoted from his 2nd Reply -


Position 1: "The fairy tales of your youth are completely made up".

Position 2 (my position): "The fairy tales of your youth are recounts of a time when magic was alive".


Of course, although I would prefer to just try and get along, as has already been pointed out, my hands are tied in this matter, and it simply is no longer an option to permit my esteemed opponent to put words into my mouth, as it were, of course due solely to the quite unexpected encouragement of my aforementioned loyal supporters at the very venerable Broken Skull & Crushed Collarbones Dojo.

 

Back to you.



 

Conclusion of 2nd Reply




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The Ultraterrestrials

Man feels isolated in the cosmos because he is no longer involved in nature and has lost his emotional unconscious identity with natural phenomena...no voices speak to man from stones, plants, animals nor does he speak to them believing they can hear - C.G. Jung

To imagine consciousness ruled by the laws of physics and chemistry is as preposterous as the suggestion that a nation could be ruled by the laws of grammar - Sir Arthur Eddington

A fairly recent theory to explain both the fairies, elves and elusive dwarfs of old times and modern Phenomena such as UFOs and their "Grays" and other Paranormal Phenomena is that of the "Ultraterrestrials" - beings that do not necessarily reside on other planets but right here on earth - albeit in another dimension or on another "wavelength" or in the collective unconscious of mankind. These theory is also called "The Mimicry Hypothesis" (because of certain beings appearing in accordance with peoples expectations throughout the ages), "The Electromagnetic UFO Theory" and the "Interdimensional Theory" by others. I have authored a few threads on this theory myself.

In short: This is yet another sense in which fairy tales may be based on some kind of reality.

A few points that actually support this theory:

* Perceptions induced by hallucinogenic drugs such as '___', "Magic Mushrooms" and '___' used to stir up visitations of elves from, say, the woods or nature (see fairty-tale author Lee Carrolls drug use) while modern accounts often refer to elves from "extraterrestrial spaceships" (see Rick Strassman / '___': The Spirit Molecule).

* Fairies and Dwarves of Fairy Tales are known for abducting and experimenting on people - a trait they share with Modern UFO-Abductioners.

* Fairy and Dwarf Tales often involve accounts of time-travel or time-dilatation, phenomena shared with modern UFO-Accounts and also with travels at extreme speed.

My ATS-Thread "Untersberg - The Mystery Mountain" has some more info on the subject of time-travelling dwarves and fairies in flying saucers.
As strange as all this might sound - its something that needs to be considered.

Yes, we need to reconsider old fairy tales and establish their symbolic and actual meaning. It wont do to brush them aside with "Lets be rational here", as my opponent does.



__________________________________________

Responses to my respected opponent




For the edification of both myself and the readers at large, please post the actual full text of his comments concerning our mutual topic. I am sure it would shed some much needed light on said topic.


I didnt mean this to cause you to elaborate on it at such length, sorry. I am not permitted to post private U2Us. I merely mentioned it in order to explain my sudden willingness to nail a debate-definition in the second post. I thought this would make our debate more simple for readers to read than cause confusion. Of course it is your right to define whatever you want for this debate. Its your Debate.




As explained above, in this matter my hands are now tied. I thank you for answering SQ4, but SQ1, SQ2 and SQ3 still remain unanswered. A simple, "yes," or, "no," will do nicely for all three.


If you insist. Here are the answers


SQ1 (Has magic ever been possible?): It really does depend on how you define magic. Defined as an objective reality: Maybe. Defined as a subjective reality: Certainly.

SQ2 - (Is magic now dead?) As an objective reality yes (to most people), yes a subjective reality yes (to many people).

SQ3 - (Would a miracle be a magical phenomenon?) For some its synonymous, for me a "miracle" can be defined as the outcome of magical causes.



I have to say, the young man, that is to say the gentleman on the left, appears absolutely human, albeit with an overabundance of facial hair, but, heck, he probably gets some dates


Yes, he appears human...except for the wolfish aspects...which makes him a werewolf, correctly defined as a mix of human and wolf.

My question to you:

SQ1: Can you see how fairy tales may be more than just entirely made-up, insubstantial tales of fiction?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

3rd Reply



Regarding the issue of the mod's elucidating u2u -


I didnt mean this to cause you to elaborate on it at such length, sorry.


It's ok ...

 

My opponent has stated -


Of course it is your right to define whatever you want for this debate. Its your Debate.


Somehow, and I'm not exactly sure why, but I find this view of our contest surprising. IMHO this contest is our debate. Very odd ...

It just seems that it would be best if both contestants were on the same page, as it were.

As things stand, again IMHO, my respected colleague and I may not even be in the same library ...

Oh well, as with all things in this mysterious world, it is what it is ...
 

A Look at the Answers to My SQ's - ( Finally ? )



Thank you ...

 

The Wolfman Revisited



Yes, he appears human...except for the wolfish aspects...which makes him a werewolf, correctly defined as a mix of human and wolf.


Without providing evidence that the man in question has the genetic markers of a wolf in his genome, it is not at all correct to claim he is partly wolf simply because he is abnormally hairy. Without such genetic evidence, my opponent's claim that the man in question is also part wolf is absolutely groundless and may be entirely refuted on that basis.
 

Answer to Round 3 SQ



SQ1: Can you see how fairy tales may be more than just entirely made-up, insubstantial tales of fiction?


Yes.
 

Critique of the Presentation of The Ultraterrestrials



My opponent gets off to a promising start indeed by pointing out that according to Dr. Jung, modern man is alienated from his environment, while according to Sir Arthur Eddington he is alienated from his own true nature as well.

His next step is to introduce the, "The Mimicry Hypothesis," as an explanation for mythical beings. So far so good.

And, next he ties it all together - sort of ...


In short: This is yet another sense in which fairy tales may be based on some kind of reality.


Again, using the term, "may," his claim asserts nothing. It is not a concrete position at which it is possible to focus a refutation. As I say, a moving target. What began as a meritorious effort at building a debatable conclusion has fallen apart at the last step.

He then proceeds to introduce several widely reported paranormal phenomena which presumably might, and of course, once again, might not, by his own admission, be explained by said hypothesis, or indeed by his own admission again, might be explained in some other way. Once again, there is nothing here to refute, since there is no clear assertion of any specific position to begin with.

The claim is only that these phenomena might be due to the hypothesis, or they might not, or they might be due to some other hypothesis, or they might not. That's four distinct positions.

That's a moving target ...

Finally, my praiseworthy adversary concludes the presentation of his case with -


Yes, we need to reconsider old fairy tales and establish their symbolic and actual meaning. It wont do to brush them aside with "Lets be rational here", as my opponent does.




Since this is a debate, where the form of our contest is predicated on logical reasoning and, indeed upon rationality itself, the assertion, "it won't do to [be] ['rational here']," is bizarre, to say the least, and one is forced to conclude, oddly enough, the statement refutes itself.

 

Conclusion of 3rd Reply




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The opponents concessions & My closing statements

Dear Judges, at the end of this debate I proudly present to you my opponents concessions for my side of the debate. In my last post I asked him "Can you see how fairy tales may be more than made up, insubstantial works of fiction?". He generously answers ***YES***. This is consistent with his replies to my Questions in the first post in which he concedes that ***YES*** fairy tales are more than imagination and ***YES*** magic was alive and ***YES miracles exist.

As my opponent conceded to my debate side this early there was nothing for me left to do than research and present examples of fairy tales being based on reality, being based on a time when magic was alive. .

My opponents main objection in his last post is that I use the word "may" as in "may have existed". The reason I use the word may throughout is because Im frankly not in the mood for dishonest hype. There is no usefulness whatsoever in making absolute statements as in "they certainly did exist". I will not insult the readers intelligence. Instead I have shown that fairy tales may indeed have a basis in reality.

I am suspecting that what was shown is already a big piece more than the average mainstream-reality joe is aware of. Who would have thought almost all ancient religions cite the reality of Unicorns? Who would have thought the ancient greeks did not consider Unicorns part of their Mythological texts? Who would have thought that there were that many accounts of werewolves in the middle ages? Who would have thought there are real illnesses that might account for the inspiration to these "fairy tales"? (My opponents statement that the man shown "is not a werewolf" does nothing to refute the fact that the illness would most probably be perceived as being that of a werewolf in the middle ages...and hence spawn many tales of horror. Magic was alive can also refer to those things people of ancient times perceived as "magic" but which has a natural scientific explanation today. IN FACT, there probably is no such thing as magic in the sense of "something outside the normal", but only phenomena we do not understand yet. And who would have thought that there are similarities between modern UFO accounts and old folklore and fairy tale? Not many I would guess.

My opponent furthermore claims that "the target is moving". Actually its not. From the second post on I stuck strictly to the idea of fairy tales being obviously or vaguely, immediately or distantly based on reality.

Should my opponent suddenly change his mind about his numerous concessions in his closing post, dont fall for that. The concessions have been made, the case is closed.

I enjoyed my opponents use of words and lengthy side-stories. Sounding nice and smart may not win a debate but it sure makes for a pleasant read.

Thanks to semperfortis for opening this debate and also for the U2U Clarification. Thanks to the other Forum Mods and Debate Fighters for making this an exciting Tournament.

Visible_Villain...I look forward to seeing you in the Pub.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Closing Statement


 

An Analysis of the Topic


Not surprisingly, upon discovering the topic of this most honorable debate -


The Fairy Tales of your youth are actually recounts of when magic was alive.


the mentation of this humble debater, without question a mere novice at his new found art, was for the moment rather at a loss for direction and thereby that impression of calmness and safety which arises from out of that wellspring known to all as deep understanding was entirely lacking to the point of profound distress.

That is to say, at first blush I found our topic pretty darned confusing !

So, after having reflected upon the matter at some length, and after having revolved upon it within my mind, as it were, again and again, finally a method for possibly debating this topic presented itself, based on the following considerations -

1 ) "when magic was alive," had to mean somewhere in the past.

2 ) "The Fairy Tales of your youth are actually recounts," in the same manner, had to mean somewhere in the present, or as is said in the vernacular, now.

Admittedly, this wasn't very much to go on, but forging bravely ahead, or clumsily, whichever the case may prove to be, ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) having already been formulated, the following further observations presented themselves -

1.1 ) somewhere in the past would have to be far enough back enough so that, "magic was alive." And not just some namby-pamby kind of magic, but real live magic. 'How far back would that be?' I asked myself. 'Well, why not as far back as possible?' I thought. Which of course is yet another question, but still good enough for the purpose at hand.

1.1.1 ) Pondering at this point for some time, I at last decided that taking it to the limit would probably be ok, and so I settled on that period in our collective history when humanity's primordial ancestors were first running around, no doubt naked, or quite close to it, in the forests of India, or Africa, or some other sub-tropical locale where just such an existence might be feasible, immediately after having only recently beforehand jumped down from out of the trees which their own more chimpanzee-like progenitors had previously occupied.

1.1.2 ) Without doubt, at such a period in our earliest history, before mankind had any notion of science whatever, a period before he even knew the secret of making fire, and thus had always to carry an ember, continually refreshed from fire to fire to fire, all the way back to the miraculous lightning strike which had ignited the first of them all, that holy fire, a spark from the almighty and, indeed divine source and support of their very lives, the sun itself, delivered unto them by the great power of the gods, in the form of the supremely deadly thunderbolt, so that he could cook his food, cauterize his wounds, harden the tips of pointed sticks for the making of weapons, etc, etc ... Get the idea ?

1.1.3 ) Way, way back ... In the limit this would have been a time for men ( and of course women as well ) that the world in which they lived was quite literally a 24/7 magic show.

1.1.4 ) From this point it is an absolute no-brainer, IMHO, to assert that of course our legends and fairy-tales are based on perceptions and lore from those very first days when our ancestors, as I say, frolicked ( and, of course killed and were killed by the occasional saber-toothed tiger, among many, many other formidable and miraculous predators ) in those now long lost aforementioned jungles.

2.1 ) Now is simply now. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here, and so I felt this interpretation would be ok too.

And so, considering that the understanding of the topic had been accomplished, I moved on.

 

Framing the Positions


This presentation, or at least most of it, has already been made in my opening statement, repeated here for convenience -


Framing the debate at hand, we have -
"The Fairy Tales of your youth are actually recounts of when magic was alive".

My opponent's role in this drama is to argue in favor of the claim and mine is to argue against.

From the statement of our topic, in terms of its literal syntax, based on the following,

... when magic was alive.


[it] would seem that the success of the pro position depends upon arguing successfully that Magic was once alive, but is now dead, and fairy tales remind us of those former times.


Not explicitly stated, but seemingly obvious enough, at least to myself, though it is precisely at this point, admittedly, where I suspect I may have missed the mark, was the converse of this position, the prosecution of which is my own role in this contest, which again, at least to my mind, obviously must be the following -


The visible_villian's debate position

Magic was once alive, and is still now alive.


The reason it is obvious to me, but quite possibly may not have been to anyone else is that, based on the considerations detailed in paragraphs ( 1.1.1 ) thru ( 1.1.3 ) above, there is quite clearly, that is to say obviously no question that primordial mankind lived completely immersed in a world of magic in precisely the same manner as, for instance, a fish lives immersed in the watery world of an ocean or a fresh water body.

I invite my reader to recall at this point it has been said, "A fish has no idea what water is."

The oral histories which developed in those early cultures, before writing was invented, no doubt became the legacy we all inherit today, a mere 400 or so human generations later, in the form of our fairy-tales, legends and myths.

Hence, once again, to my mind anyway and perhaps, alas, to no one else's, the only possible con position, based on the considerations detailed in paragraph ( 1.1.4 ) is the one stated.

 

Closing Arguments


Since to state that, "Magic was once alive and fairy tales remind us of those times," is equivalent to stating an unquestionable fact, based on the arguments set forth in the preceding section, the task which now lies before me is simply to prove that, Magic is still alive.

This is accomplished directly as follows.

Explaining the word magic, Webster® says -


magic
2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

[1]


And Webster® says the definition of paranormal -


paranormal
not scientifically explainable.

[2]


We find that a paranormal phenomenon is one which is, "not scientifically explainable", hence, magic is a catagory of paranormal phenomena.

The Matter of Modern Science, Electricity, Magnetism, Light, and Gravity

I will never forget something an instructor said during the first lecture of his 3rd year university electronics class which I attended. Paraphrasing, it went something like this -


Although we can predict with extremely high accuracy how electricity will behave, we don't understand what electricity actually is.


They didn't know what electricity is? Amazement and shock and disappointment too, were my reactions to this unexpected information. Amazement and shock because I had just naturally assumed they had it all figured out, but I had just been informed this was not the case. Disappointment because I really, really did want to know the secret behind the mystery ...

Not only does science not understand the essential nature of electricity, which long experience has shown what my instructor said that night was correct - we can predict with astounding accuracy how it will behave, and design and build systems thereby which nowadays meet nearly miraculous performance specifications, but -- we still have absolutely no idea what electricity actually is !

In that very manner, since science doesn't know what it is, electricity is therefore, most assuredly a magical force or substance.

I still find this amazing, now many, many years later after that first university electronics lecture ... amazing !

Anyway, I can state finally that for exactly the same reason electricity is magical, so also are the other physical entities and forces mentioned in the heading of this section magical as well.

That is to say, Magnetism, Light, and Gravity, and I am sure others as well are magical forces for the same reason electricity is - science has absolutely no idea what these forces actually are !

And so, in closing, I believe I have completely proved, by the above arguments, the assertion that, "It is a scientific fact that Electricity, Magnetism, Light, and Gravity are magical forces."
 

Epilogue


This was a most interesting battle, even if it was characterized by the occasional stray shot and inelegant maneuver.

Finally, may I extend my gratitude to the judges, my esteemed and most honorable opponent, Skyfloating and the forum at large for their skill, their time and their interest. I hope you were all not too bored by this exercise.

With these closing words, I now submit my fate to the judges' tender mercies ...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Off to the Judges

Good Luck!!

Semper



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
We have a Winner!!!!!!


Skyfloating vs. visible_villain

An interesting debate to judge. It seemed both fighters were happy to follow tangents where ever they may have led. The real debate didn't really seem to start till near the end. SF seemed to have a hard time settling on his sides definition yet stuck to the idea of creatures such as unicorns and werewolves, etc.. throughout the debate. Although he almost seemed distracted during the debate, not building his case in a well defined manner. He left a lot of it up to the judges interpretation it seems, instead of giving us a well defined argument to measure his opponents side against.

He had some very strong points in the references to mythical animals possibly being creatures that have gone extinct although he didn't actually state this anywhere in the debate, which surprised me. I was also impressed with the use of the Ultraterrestrials line of argument and the similarity to some mythical creatures. I think this should have been something that was introduced earlier in the debate.

Visible_villain seemed to have the easier side in this debate. Most of what SF would be presenting would be based on conjecture. He did do a good job in refuting most of SF's claims, as with the images of the rhino and the oryx to counter the claims of unicorns. Although the rhino didn't really look like the animal in SF's image as the horn was to the front of the rhinos head and the animal in the seal has the horn more to the top of it's head. The animal on the seal doesn't look like a rhino.

There were some interesting concessions made, as SF pointed out but even with those v_v stayed the course of his side.

For me, this entire debate really hinged on the debate over the definition, since an inordinate amount of text was spent on it. SF tried several times, through subtlety and directness to place the definition in the light that he wanted it. Visible_villain refuted it, with lenghthy side bars and amusing quips and seemed to stick to what he wanted the topic to be.

I'll be honest, this was a hard debate to judge. Neither fighter really stood out. Both strayed from the topic and provided unneeded elements to the debate. In the end, SF's avoidance of his opponents SQ's made the difference in my point tally. Therefore, I declare visible_villain the winner.



Comments
Sky's opening is concise and to the point

Visibles focused too much on the initial platitudes, and then didn't set out the basis of his argument. Nor did I find the answers to the SQ's very illuminating, as they were only very brief one word answers.

Visible then goes on to criticise Sky's answer to the SQ's posed - which is unwarranted IMHO as Sky actually answered the question, instead of just one word rebuttal.

Skys admittance that he was confused about the topic is honourable, and brief. He then goes on to provide a strong case in his argument for the existence of a certain conditions.

VV replies with a third of a post that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject, save to take up space, and then also questions the intergrity of his oppponent and the forum moderators by suggesting that the private U2U be published - again, nothing to do with the topic, and - to me - most certainly not in the spirit of the debate forum.

His counter to Skys point about werewolves comes over as weak, relying on two pictures - one from a movie, which has no basis in actual fact.

Sky then proceeds with the topic in a business like manner, but again, VV's response is almost mocking - not the way I like to see a debate conducted.

Only in VV's third and final post do I see substantial coverage of the deabte topic itself, and some good points are raised.

Skys closing is, again, to the point, while VV spends half of the closing post attempting to catch up on the subject, and then produces a closing that appears to be not part of the original debate subject.

Judgement
Victory to Sky, for sticking to the subject, providing readable content and not going off the beaten track.
Had we seen more from VV views on the actual topic in his first and second posts the debate after the opening it may well have been different.



Both members have come out of the gate firing at one another and it seems that the reader is in for a top notch debate. Skyfloating's opening response was very strong and thorough. But after reading vv's opening response, I'd have to say that vv did a better job on clarifying the topic at hand and utilizing more effective Socratic questions. Opening post, I give the upper hand to vv.

Sky's first rebuttal is nicely put, however lacking in substance. I am disappointed in Sky's brief summation of their opponent's Socratic questions. The rules indicate that each question requires a direct answer, which was not fulfilled. vv directly calls his opponent out on this and is a wise move. vv's assteriveness shows through and it will put the ball back in Sky's court to come back with something. I give the first rebuttal to vv as well, by a very, very large margin.
Sky's second response confirms what the reader already suspects, that they are having a bit of trouble grasping their position. I see this concession as a little late, even though we are early in the debate.. but certainly necessary if they hope to turn the momentum. However, after this concession, I see little substance to assure the reader that they have solidified their position. I am disappointed that Sky has yet to respond to the complete set of Socratic questions, yet has asked their opponent to post them again. It seems that Sky is trying to wiggle through this debate, yet their opponent has a strong grasp. In vv's rebuttal, the aggression continues to pour and I'm beginning to feel it is somewhat excessive. I fail to see why the benefit of the doubt isn't being offered to semperfortis, who has certainly earned the trust of those involved. But to each their own and I see the point being made. I'm confused with the extended effort of content that has nothing to do with the debate, but it's ironic that with all of this effort directed elsewhere, vv is still controlling this debate. Second rebuttal to vv as well.

I'm going to stop at this point with the commentary on each post and offer a brief summation on what I read in the final posts of the debate and my impression overall.

Skyfloating is one of the best debaters in the ATS Pub. However, it seems they've been assigned a topic and position that has caught them off guard. Coupled with an aggressive opponent who was ready to do battle and had prepared a very strong position.

I award this debate to visible_villain.


Winner:::: visible_villain

visible_villain will advance

Semper



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
What a strange topic to debate ! Very enjoyable for me, and a little stressful, and I made some poor decisions in the prosecution of my case, but due to the accidents of fate have emerged victorious anyway.

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my honorable opponent, Skyfloating, for a well reasoned presentation of his postion and a good fight indeed. May we meet again, sir !

To the judges I extend my most humble thanks for their valuable and welcome critique of our efforts in this contest and their cumulative decision which has fallen ( this time ) in my favor.

To the forum at large and all those others who may have taken an interest in this contest, I thank you for following as well.





new topics
top topics
 
12

log in

join