NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

What, the Contest host participating in his own Contest? What madness is this?

Ok, ok, I'm not awarding myself anything for this mini contest, this is just an experiment that fits somewhere in between unofficial and official. People who participate in this mini contest will be treated no differently to anybody who participates in any other mini contest.

So anyway, back to the contest.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the city beneath. Gossip says that there is not one, but two sky's, one below and one above. However, gossip is unproductive, and is believed to be the cause in a 8.4% downturn in productivity. So, the call has gone across the whole of the city that there is to be a debate in the town square over this wasteful gossip to end it once and for all.

Rules
This debate is centered on the eighth.

All participants must debate over the statement "There isn't a second sky"

Each participant must state at the start of their post whether they are arguing affirmative or negative.

Each participant is to bear the temporary title of 'Xth Debater' X being a number of your choice. No choosing the same number as somebody else, and all numbers must be integers.

If you wish to refer to another debater, you must use their temporary title of Xth Debater.

The winner is to be decided by a panel of judges. The way it works is that Me, Banjooie and you (but you decide differently) select the top three people who where the best debaters (Its the quality of the argument, not which side wins that matters) and decide which team offered the best arguement as a whole.

All of you vote by cheering on a debater. The cheering will be tallied up and the top three will be selected. From there, the winners will be selected.

Prizes are

2 rankpoints for being on the winning team (Remember, to be on a team you must place an arguement)
5 Rankpoints for the Winner
3 Rankpoints for the runner up
2 Rankpoints for third place.

Timing
You have until Local Time:05-18-2008 at 01:00 PM, that is, in negative 831 weeks, 3 days to discuss the topic. After that, the winners will be decided on.

---

[Last edited by NiroZ at 05-06-2008 01:33 PM]

zex20913
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1723
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

I think that X should be your DROD number--just to keep it unique.

____________________________

bachus
Level: Goblin
Rank Points: 28
Registered: 03-03-2008
IP: Logged

I am arguing negative.

Of course there is a second sky... and a third, and a fourth and so on... But here, in this argument, I am only trying to prove the existence of the second.

Argument: Look at any time of the day at the sky and make a picture of it, to be sure you remember it. Then, at night, look again and make another picture. Now compare the 2 pictures and acknowledge that those are different skies. If you still (stubbornly) believe it is the same sky, please define "sky" and why you believe it is the same.

The 11th Debater.

---

[Last edited by bachus at 05-06-2008 02:11 PM : took the rotation part out]

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

I probably should clarify. This is set within the eighth. This doesn't change your argument, bachus, but I'm not sure the eighth rotates.

bachus
Level: Goblin
Rank Points: 28
Registered: 03-03-2008
IP: Logged

It changes it a little I must admit I didn't pay enough attention.

calamarain
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 933
Registered: 03-25-2007
IP: Logged

I would propose that there is indeed a second sky. Due to the diversity of names in the Eighth (well, at least above ground), I believe that there will be at least two abovegrounders called Sky or Skye, like in the real world.

Thus, if there's at least two people called Sky, there must be a second sky.

35th Debater.

____________________________
My Holds

---

[Last edited by calamarain at 05-06-2008 05:24 PM]

MeckMeck GRE
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 594
Registered: 01-03-2005
IP: Logged

There is no second sky. The second sky is the same sky as the first sky. The world is round. Hey I mean that serious ! You actually don't have to go down to lowest point to see the second sky. It's completly sufficient to walk once around our planet. Never wondered why the second sky is described much like "our" sky?

0th Debater

---

[Last edited by MeckMeck GRE at 05-06-2008 05:18 PM]

calamarain
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 933
Registered: 03-25-2007
IP: Logged

MeckMeck GRE wrote:
There is no second sky. The second sky is the same sky as the first sky. The world is round.

Well argued, 0th Debater, but you forget the testimony of Vurlap the Mad, who ventured into the caverns below Tueno and returned bearing fantastic tales of another sky below the world. Then again, we can't be entirely sure of his truthfulness, since he was also talking about huge statues that move, and endless fields of a green gel.

But we're pretty sure he's right about the second sky.

35h Debater.

____________________________
My Holds

MeckMeck GRE
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 594
Registered: 01-03-2005
IP: Logged

calamarain wrote:
Well argued, 0th Debater, but you forget the testimony of Vurlap the Mad, who ventured into the caverns below Tueno and returned bearing fantastic tales of another sky below the world.

35h Debater.

You're right, I heared his stories too. But we should not forget about all those weird potions and noxious tar fumes in the caverns of Tueno. Maybe all this stuff has altered his memories.

calamarain
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 933
Registered: 03-25-2007
IP: Logged

If the world was round, doesn't that mean that we'd all start rolling if we moved in the slightest?

35th Debater.

____________________________
My Holds

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5058
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Benedat's discovery nearly 150 years ago demonstrated that the Eighth is not round. It is flat. In fact, it is shaped like a piece of cherry pie.

The sky is a lie.

3rd Debater

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

Mr. Slice
Level: Disabled
Rank Points: 140
Registered: 10-26-2007
IP: Logged

I have two debates. I don't know if this is allowed, but it's my debate.

Neutral Debate:
Who says that TSS is literal? There could be only one sky and the other is like the journey through the sky.

Positive Debate:
There might as well be a second sky. How about the ground? How about the other side of the ground, like a mirror? This could as well be possible, since even through the Eighth is pie-shaped, it should be at least three dimensional. The sky on the other side of the ground.

12th Debater

____________________________
"To see or to hear is to know, but to
do is to understand"

techant
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 854
Registered: 06-08-2004
IP: Logged

Mr. Slice wrote:
I have two debates. I don't know if this is allowed, but it's my debate.

Neutral Debate:
Who says that TSS is literal? There could be only one sky and the other is like the journey through the sky.

Positive Debate:
There might as well be a second sky. How about the ground? How about the other side of the ground, like a mirror? This could as well be possible, since even through the Eighth is pie-shaped, it should be at least three dimensional. The sky on the other side of the ground.

12th Debater

There goes that 12th Debater again tring to please everyone.

Everyone knows the further up north you go the closer the edges of the Eighth gets, and that if you could get to any edge of the Eighth you would see that the one sky just keeps going, I will say it again it is ONE sky.

As far as the ground it just keeps going, everyone knows that, there is no bottom.

These "TWO SKY" supporters have had to make up new science, saying "it should be at least three dimensional." Next they will tell us that the Eighth is round. Ha!

I am arguing negative, I am against this second sky movement, it will distroy the unity of the Eighth.

'553rd Debater'

____________________________
DROD RPG Released!! You must try it out it is Great!!

Jatopian
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1842
Registered: 07-31-2005
IP: Logged

I understand that I must, against my better judgment which I shall elucidate shortly, open by taking a side. I suspect that there is a second sky.

I believe that the root of the problem is that we have not properly defined "sky". I will, for this debate, adopt the primary official definition, which may be summarized as "the upper air".

The "upper" implies that all "sky" must be above ground, and so if there is a second sky, it must either occur between two unconnected world-spanning planes of ground, or else there must be a reverse side of the Eighth in which gravity is reversed. I myself would call for further investigations into the gravitational force before taking a position, were that allowed.

But there is another "point" I would further wish to investigate: Lowest Point. This is believed to be called thus because it is the lowest piece of the Rooted Empire, which endeavored in the past to expand as far below as possible and surely did succeed. It is well known that the geometry of our Eighth wraps around on itself, as evidenced by the otherwise inexplicable instantaneous migration of the wild fegundo from Sun Island to the utter South.
Therefore we must know: Is Lowest Point the point at which ground wraps around to the sky of those Above, is there another layer of ground not contiguous with ours far below, or does Lowest Point indicate the existence gravitational reversal?

My answer, in the absence of factual records, is based upon my conversations with those who plan for the possibility of war with the Above. If there is merely the same sky below Lowest Point as is far above, this could be a novel and unexpected vector of attack, which those with full access to Imperial knowledge would surely not have overlooked in their genetically-engineered competence. There are no such plans.
Therefore, there must either be multiple kinds of "up", due to differing gravitational pull, and therefore multiple skies, or else there is another non-gaseous plane in the way, demarcating a second sky.

To conclude and recap: I believe that by logical implications, the question we ask by asking "Is there a second sky?" is truly: "What is lower than Lowest Point?"

-1683rd Debater

____________________________
DROD has some really great music.
Make your pressure plates 3.0 style!
DROD architecture idea generator

---

[Last edited by Jatopian at 05-07-2008 02:21 AM]

Mr. Slice
Level: Disabled
Rank Points: 140
Registered: 10-26-2007
IP: Logged

What is lower than Lowest Point? Do this to get lower than Lowest Point. Just take a shovel to lowest point, dig a hole a few feet deep, jump in and say you're lower than lowest point.

____________________________
"To see or to hear is to know, but to
do is to understand"

calamarain
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 933
Registered: 03-25-2007
IP: Logged

It must also be considered that during the day, the sky is blue with no stars, and during the night, the sky is black with stars. The stars must come from somewhere. Is it so implausible that there is a second sky with all the stars that we only see at night?

This is yet another argument in favour of a second sky...

35th Debater

And yes, I know I might be bending the rules of the contest just a tad. But this is from an Eighter's point of view.

____________________________
My Holds

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

calamarain wrote:
And yes, I know I might be bending the rules of the contest just a tad. But this is from an Eighter's point of view.

How?

calamarain
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 933
Registered: 03-25-2007
IP: Logged

Arguing that there must be a second sky because there's probably more than one person called Sky.

I think that might be bending the rules ;-)

____________________________
My Holds

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Ah, yeah, I'm assuming that was a joke. I thought you were talking about your second argument.

bachus
Level: Goblin
Rank Points: 28
Registered: 03-03-2008
IP: Logged

Since the initial affirmation, that we are debating, states that there isn't a second sky, all that has to be proven is that, from some perspective, there is one and so contradict the initial affirmation which doesn't say specifically what a sky is.

So, in this argument, unlike the 1683rd Debater, suggest that the sky can also have the meaning of "the supernal or celestial heaven". Which of course exists, otherwise please tell me where the souls of all the roaches go (of course they have a soul, otherwise they would be robots and we know they are not). And this sky is different from the material one, because you cannot see it. So here is your second sky.

I would go a little further and say that a 3rd sky also exists, because one must think that when they die, Beethro and Slayers do not go to the same place (this would not be right, right?). So, I would suggest that there is even a second celestial sky, for the good living creatures, other than the one for the bad.

The 11th Debater

Beef Row
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 471
Registered: 12-28-2005
IP: Logged

11th Debater wrote:
So, in this argument, unlike the 1683rd Debater, suggest that the sky can also have the meaning of "the supernal or celestial heaven". Which of course exists, otherwise please tell me where the souls of all the roaches go (of course they have a soul, otherwise they would be robots and we know they are not).

And what about the golems? Do they go to Silicon Heaven? This entire line of thinking is absurd, as soon as we flee from the tangible, we lose the ability to produce evidence.

I for one, deny the existence of a second sky, as it would need be beneath the ground. Now, we can see above us there is no ground above the sky, the sky proceeds onward infinitely without end. As we know that one portion of this interface continues without limit, and lacking any evidence that the other does not, we must conclude the earth as well proceeds infiinitely, without interruption from sky.

As there are stars in the sky, and these may perhaps be solid masses, so there are caves in the earth, hollow bits of air which however make up no true sky, any more than the inside of a house makes up a sky, or a star makes up a ground.

42nd Debater

____________________________
"Now I will repeatedly apply the happy-face rule"

bachus
Level: Goblin
Rank Points: 28
Registered: 03-03-2008
IP: Logged

42nd Debater wrote:
as soon as we flee from the tangible, we lose the ability to produce evidence

I have to disagree, I believe our entire life is lived around non-tangible „things“ and we are sure they exist even if we cannot directly „touch“ them with our senses. For example, the mind, the soul, the time, the numbers.... feelings like love. This is one thing that differentiates us from animals, a more evolved conscience that leads to the possibility of including certain (abstract) concepts (that are of course non-tangible) in our frame of thinking.

It is quite brutal to say that an entire line of thinking is absurd, considering that by denying the initial statement, all that is asked is to present an angle of view from which there seems to exist a second sky.

The 11th Debater

Beef Row
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 471
Registered: 12-28-2005
IP: Logged

11th Debater wrote:

42nd Debater wrote:
as soon as we flee from the tangible, we lose the ability to produce evidence

I have to disagree, I believe our entire life is lived around non-tangible „things“ and we are sure they exist even if we cannot directly „touch“ them with our senses. For example, the mind, the soul, the time, the numbers.... feelings like love. This is one thing that differentiates us from animals, a more evolved conscience that leads to the possibility of including certain (abstract) concepts (that are of course non-tangible) in our frame of thinking.

Perhaps I should clarify my reasoning on this matter. Certainly, there are phenomenon we do not detect with our most immediate and familiar senses, and I have no objection to acknowledging these intangibles. However, having acknowledged them, we know little about them, and have no way of testing any further conclusion which we draw.

My comment on silicon heaven was meant to raise this point, as you already take the idea of the heart mind and soul and from them guess there must be at least three skies, because not only must souls go 'somewhere', but diffrent souls must go to diffrent places.

And it is this needless and untestable multiplication of guesses, estimates and predictions which I consider a dangerous flight from the tangible into realms of pure theory, not the simple acknowledgement that there are some intangible things we nonetheless percieve as real.

There is a yearning for a heaven, specifically one which we ourselves are eligible for. But this yearning is not the same as our ability to sense that we have a mind, nor does it tell us if such a place should exist it must be a realm of sky, this is mere folk superstition.

42nd Debater

____________________________
"Now I will repeatedly apply the happy-face rule"

bachus
Level: Goblin
Rank Points: 28
Registered: 03-03-2008
IP: Logged

Ok, I admit that the 3rd sky is a step further than what we are discussing. Just to finish that idea, I indeed find very logical the idea that everyone goes to the heaven (sky) specific to his actions. So this would make a potentially infinite number of skies. Of course, this could be, as the 42nd Debater said, just a yearning of the human being.

Returning strictly to our argument. In the official definition of "sky", as mentioned by the 1683rd Debater, you see there that sky can have the meaning of "supernal or celestial heaven". So, to make it simple, I propose the first sky to be the one that we see above us, and the second sky to be the "celestial heaven" (where our soul goes when we die). And I say they both exist, contradicting the affirmation "There isn't a second sky".

The 11th Debater.

Beef Row
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 471
Registered: 12-28-2005
IP: Logged

11th Debater wrote:
Ok, I admit that the 3rd sky is a step further than what we are discussing. Just to finish that idea, I indeed find very logical the idea that everyone goes to the heaven (sky) specific to his actions. So this would make a potentially infinite number of skies. Of course, this could be, as the 42nd Debater said, just a yearning of the human being.

Returning strictly to our argument. In the official definition of "sky", as mentioned by the 1683rd Debater, you see there that sky can have the meaning of "supernal or celestial heaven". So, to make it simple, I propose the first sky to be the one that we see above us, and the second sky to be the "celestial heaven" (where our soul goes when we die). And I say they both exist, contradicting the affirmation "There isn't a second sky".

The 11th Debater.

I am confused as to how a single heaven is more certain and less a yearning than a series of heavens, the distinction is between that which we can sense and that which we hope for. It seems to me your arguement remains 'I hope there is a heaven' more than 'I can show there is a heaven', and even to use the 'supernal heaven' definition of sky would require not only showing a sort of repository for souls does exist, but it is greater than the Eighth and/or peopled by divinities.

While I will grant a mind, and even a soul (which may be used to animate a clone for instance), I do not see how it follows that upon suffering a trauma which destroys the body, the soul far from being destroyed is free to move to a place greater than this. Indeed, if a soul so were so 'freed' in the case of cloning would not they simply animate another clone? And as we know, this is something man cannot do.

Further, many, especially delvers report an experience that they have been somewhere before, and indeed may have died there, coupled with a knowledge of what they must do to avoid danger. This suggests that if anything whatsoever occurs to the soul it may be a return to this world, not to some unknown higher realm.

To grant the existence of these components of man simply does not allow one to assume there is another place for them, when all we know of them is their presence where we are now.

I believe I have made my position on this sufficently clear, and lacking any evidence for such a heaven, will address only arguements based in the physical realm from here onward.

42nd Debater

____________________________
"Now I will repeatedly apply the happy-face rule"

bachus
Level: Goblin
Rank Points: 28
Registered: 03-03-2008
IP: Logged

I will try to rephrase the argument. We already established the existence of a first sky, and acknowledged the existence of the soul (even a Slayer has a soul). I am asking where the soul of the Slayer goes after death (before coming back at another Slayer, if he is coming back anyway) and name that place the second sky.

The 11th Debater.

calamarain
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 933
Registered: 03-25-2007
IP: Logged

There is also the argument put forward by various primitive tribes, though it's not discussed much in civilised areas. When the sun is out, shining gloriously, with only a few clouds in the sky...

...look down into a pool of still water. Do you not see a second sky there? It may be only a reflection, but who is to say that it isn't our sky that's the reflection and the true sky is in the water?

35th Debater.

____________________________
My Holds

Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3626
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged

I would like to disprove this "sky reflection" theory by stating that a reflection in the water disappears once the reflected object (conscious or not) leaves the edge of the observer's sight and cannot be seen in the water anymore. We do not disappear when we return to our dry homes, so therefore we are real and the reflections are mere images.

An image of a sky is not a sky. So there is no "second sky" to be found in the water.

-20th Debater

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):

Jatopian
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1842
Registered: 07-31-2005
IP: Logged

11th Debater, you have not supported your claim that Slayers have "souls", nor have you provided any reason to assume that any afterlife that may exist has a sky. Surely Heaven - if any exists, which is doubtful - must be closer to our beloved Beneath than anything else?

- 1683rd Debater

____________________________
DROD has some really great music.
Make your pressure plates 3.0 style!
DROD architecture idea generator

noma
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1594
Registered: 11-22-2006
IP: Logged

On the topic "there isn't a second sky" I must argue in the affirmative. While my imagination is captured by the idea of a second sky -- metaphorical, metaphysical or literal -- as the 1683rd Debater himself said, there is an "absence of factual records." In the absence of such records, we can only argue from a position of what we know to be true, or we may as well debate on whether or not the stars are made of green cheese.

What do we know? We know that the atmosphere above us, which usually appears blue in the day and dark at night, is what we categorize as "sky." It may, or may not, have an upper limit; it may, or may not, be bordered by the plane of our earth. To address the 11th Debater's early argument of a night sky being a second sky: if you are in your candlelit home at night, do you believe you are in a "second home"? A night sky is simply another aspect of the sky, in the same way that the back of my hand is another aspect of the front of my hand--I do not have two hands at the end of each arm any more than there are two skies above our heads.

What else do we know? Yes, Vurlap the Mad returned with tales of a sky beneath the ground. Two points here: one, he was mad; and two, by his own admission, he was in a cavern. I may hold a rock and call it a flower; it is still a rock. No matter what its denizens call it, the roof of a cavern is the underside of our ground and cannot, by any stretch of the definition, be called a sky.

As to the possibility of a second sky above (or below as it were) the flipside of the Eighth: if it could be proved that one, our sky was a discrete entity -- that is, it extended down to the ground and seas; and two, that at some point when passing through the caverns below the Eighth up became down and down up and that one could then climb "up" onto another ground, I would concede that there could be a second sky. Since there is no such evidence, or even one single claim of this being done, I must at this point reject this hypothesis. Further, even with the considerable explorations that are rumoured to have occurred, there is not a single report of any explorer experiencing a shift in perception of up versus down.

As to the intangible definitions of a second sky raised by the 11th, the 35th and other Debaters: these speculations are best confined to philosophical discussions as there are no proofs that can be offered.

I would argue that, at present, there is no second sky in the world that we know. Until any concrete evidence is brought forward to support such a claim, further debate or discussion is meaningless.

-- The 3399th Debater

---

[Last edited by noma at 05-17-2008 11:27 PM : sp.]