The Instigator
InkSlinger4
Pro (for)
Tied
15 Points
The Contender
zdog234
Con (against)
Tied
15 Points

Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,383 times Debate No: 4003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (10)

 

InkSlinger4

Pro

Hello! Please debate. :)

Astronomy is, I believe, the most interesting type of science. There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area. It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out. While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science.
zdog234

Con

This is my first debate, so I will proceed cautiously.

The subject at hand is what is the most interesting form of science. She has said that it is astronomy, but has failed to specify what she means by it. Since she hasn't, I will.

Astronomy: The branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the universe as a whole.

My opponent has neglected using facts and evidence, but instead has decided to simply post opinions.

Here's an example

"There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area."

While I do enjoy astronomy, there are some major problems with it.

First of all, we are limited in what we can accomplish by many factors (the atmosphere, backlight from the sun, even it's gravity.) And the only way around this is to make advances in other fields. For example, The voyager 2 spacecraft just recently left the solar system, and for the first time we saw that our solar system is shaped more like a flattened ball than a perfect sphere. But this could have not been found without advances in chemistry, plastics, and optical fibers.

But besides Astronomy's reliance on other sciences more than any other, there is another science that is much more open and is very much required for astronomy to progress any further. Particle physics. While astronomy has been growing and improving over the past 500 years, it has been at a cap ever since we learned how to use x-rays for observing the night sky. This cap can only be crossed if we learn how to observe particles as we can atoms and light waves. Not only that, but we can possibly find ways to travel 100 times conventional speeds, (not light. sorry that's still impossible) or cure cancer by using particles to remove the cancer gene.

And that is why I think particle physics is the coolest form of science.
Debate Round No. 1
InkSlinger4

Pro

My opponent claims that I overuse opinions. To clarify, let me assert: What is the most interesting to someone personally IS their opinion. You may criticize my use of such in my argument, but when you start an argument, it is difficult to decide which facts to prove or disprove. However, I shall now augment with fact.

Despite my opponent's claim that astronomy relies on all other sciences, let me input that because it includes all these other sciences (even as all other sciences do) it makes it even more fascinating and variable, not less.

The challenges that precede many other discoveries in Astronomy make it a field welcoming to all specialists, and cement its flexibility in appealing to those from all fields and interests.

And bringing your own opinion into this (scorned by yourself) while acceptable to me, may be scorned my others. It isn't really relevant. Just a heads up.

Thanks for debating.
zdog234

Con

What my opponent has not realized is that she has just sealed her fate.

What my previous point was is that astronomy is kind of like a resource sponge. It requires the advancement of all other forms of technology, while giving little or nothing of it's own. Since astronomy is the study of stars, what can we gain from that in the here and now. Since my opponent has not given any examples of positive bonuses from studying the stars, we must assume that there are none.

Whereas particle physics (while requiring about the same amount of research) can give great things to us. Inter-stellar travel (not a part of astronomy since astronomy is the study of stars, not the actual process of going there and setting up colonies), we could even cure cancer with the proper use of particles.

I call upon my opponent to present evidence that astronomy (the study of stars.) Will present anything helpful to society, healthcare, economics, or another science that benefits any of these three.
Debate Round No. 2
InkSlinger4

Pro

My opponent fails to observe the true purpose of this argument. The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. Astronomy, by a definition from dictionary.com, means the science that deals with the material universe beyond the earth's atmosphere. If you did not know this, I apologize for not keeping you informed. This science, larger than your assessment, includes the entire universe. Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet.

Thanks for debating.
zdog234

Con

I will go over this step by step.

"There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area." pro 1
"The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. " pro 3

1) I don't see how this is about astronomy's properties when my opponent's first argument was that it has the greatest capacity for learning (an obvious production of knowledge) and that it will have outstanding results.

"It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out."

2) First of all, we have an almost complete grasp of the universe, and we now know that it is finite, whereas we have made almost no research into stem cells, particle physics, or robotics. And wouldn't particle physics be much less mundane, as the universe is made of mass traveling at a given velocity, and particles are literally points (point n. A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location.) that can move at nearly infinite speeds. And we have not began to find out about how the brain works. For all we know, de javu is very real. Perhaps we will literally be able to see the future. Doesn't that make neuroscience more mysterious than astronomy?

"While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science."

3) First of all, many people are inspired by these fields and have caused great advances. Second, physics are a large part of astronomy. Third, it is a pure opinion to say that they are too close to home to instill anybody with the inspiration to do great things in science.

"Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet."

4) As con it is not my job to prove any other science better than astronomy, just that they are the same or better. In addition, she has not shown what that material is.

I will restate my argument:

My opponent's first argument was that astronomy will yield outstanding results, and since then she has not presented any evidence that astronomy will give any benefits to humanity. There are many other sciences that are just as, if not more important than astronomy. Take reusable energy production and research. If we can't save our planet for at least another billion years, we won't survive long enough for astronomy to have any benefit on us anyway.

And please. Vote for the better argument, not who you agree with.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
It was in scientific american.
Posted by perfectionist48 9 years ago
perfectionist48
Oh, um, I have a question.
Zdog234, you said, "First of all, we have an almost complete grasp of the universe, and we now know that it is finite" in your Con 3 argument. I'm not actually challenging this statement. I just did not know that. When was that discovery made? By whom? And did we learn that in science (on maybe one of the days I was absent)? Or did you find out seperately?
You made me curious.
Posted by perfectionist48 9 years ago
perfectionist48
Zdog234, those two statements you just quoted are not necessarily contradicting.
In pro 1 she was saying that the results were outstanding, therefore, interesting.
In pro 3 she was replying to your statement "I call upon my opponent to present evidence that astronomy (the study of stars.) Will present anything helpful to society, healthcare, economics, or another science that benefits any of these three." by saying that the point of the argument is not astronomy's helpful/useful production, but that it is fascinating.
The way I see it, pro 1 and 3 are not contradicting.
Posted by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
well. That is an opinion.

"I feel you have not really addressed the issue well."

And then again, you did have self contradicting statements

Pro 1- "and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area. "

Pro 3- "My opponent fails to observe the true purpose of this argument. The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. "

And you did not address any of my points. Not one.....

Which means I basically win them by default. (a phrase that many people on this site use.)
Posted by InkSlinger4 9 years ago
InkSlinger4
Your previous comment, quite ironically, claimed that I had no concrete fact while also displaying this trait within your own statements. Many of my statements, in fact, were self-supporting and therefore impossible to contest. Those that were not were poorly combated in any case. While made a decent case for particle physics (something completely unrelated to the topic) I feel you have not really addressed the issue well.
Posted by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
please remember to vote based on the argument. She has not presented any facts, and has not addressed any of my arguments, while I have addressed all of hers. In addition, she has not even upheld her arguments.
Posted by perfectionist48 9 years ago
perfectionist48
I missed how she has "sealed her fate". In what way? And when did she do this?
Posted by candygirl_s 9 years ago
candygirl_s
P.S.

go to Stanford Team is Better XD and vote!!!!
Posted by candygirl_s 9 years ago
candygirl_s
HAAAAAAAAhahahaa! Hi 'ZDog'!!! XD

Also, chemistry is the best. Astrology scares me. The universe is just... ugh.
Posted by InkSlinger4 9 years ago
InkSlinger4
By the way, nice new avvie. Even if you did steal it from someone's t-shirt.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ally93 9 years ago
ally93
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DDRPsycho 9 years ago
DDRPsycho
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by InkSlinger4 9 years ago
InkSlinger4
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by perfectionist48 9 years ago
perfectionist48
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by candygirl_s 9 years ago
candygirl_s
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by The_Philosopher 9 years ago
The_Philosopher
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
InkSlinger4zdog234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03