The Instigator
JcMagic2015
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zaephou
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A comet impacted the Earth in 10,900 BC which had devastating results for the planet

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 282 times Debate No: 94675
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

JcMagic2015

Pro

The pro side, being that a comet impacted the Earth in 10,900 BC. This led to dramatic effects for the planet and humans living here during that time.
Zaephou

Con

Firsty, my opponent is taking the side that the North American comet catastrophe did happen over 12,000 years ago.

Secondly, and lastly, this did not happen, as a new study in 2014 found out that the 29 sediment layers that indicate the effects of the comet appears to be much younger or much older and "Chronological evidence fails to support claim of an isochronous widespread layer of cosmic impact indicators dated to 12,800 years ago" [0].

[0] - https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
JcMagic2015

Pro

This is deeper than just one paper. There have been over a dozen papers from multiple different groups published showing positive evidence for the impact.

One possible reason for the papers outcome that is cited above is the Clovis-era radiocarbon plateau.

Fiedel, S., 2015, The Clovis-era radiocarbon plateau. In A. M.
Smallwood and T. A. Jennings, eds., pp. 11-19, Clovis : on the edge
of a new understanding. College Station : Texas A&M University
Press. 364 pp.

This calls your reference into question. I feel the body of evidence still is in favor of a comet. The stories from Native Americans living in the mid-northern US around this time support what we would expect if a comet impact happened. Black rain, darkened skies with no sun for a long time, etc...
Zaephou

Con

This will be a quick argument, the reason I picked that study, is because that study actually proved all the claims and findings as being invalid, misleading or wrong.

Even if it is only one study, the fact that it was able to prove all these other studies you mentioned wrong means that that study is the superior evidence, and I would also like to point out that my opponent did fall into the ambiguity fallacy when arguing for his point the first round.
Debate Round No. 2
JcMagic2015

Pro

Scientific findings are constantly being updated, corrected, proven wrong, etc...

Are you able to provide any other sources besides this one to support your claim?
Zaephou

Con

While my opponent's claim and evidence provided is standalone, the evidence I provided to support my claim also support other hypotheses devised by scientific figures, such as the hypothesis that the circulation of warm tropical weather in the North Atlantic was shutdown by an influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz in mid-North America and deglaciation.

It is also important to mention my initial evidence came to fruition by reviewing the sediments on the 29 sites that supposedly suggests of a comet impact. While my opponent mentioned the fact that scientific findings are constantly being changed, it is perhaps important to note that my initial evidence is most likely the update on the scientific finding that follows my opponent's initial claim.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.