The Instigator
18freckles
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Alex
Con (against)
Winning
67 Points

Dragons were real!!

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Alex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,719 times Debate No: 7144
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

18freckles

Pro

I would just like to say that I do believe dragons were real way back then and they arent some mystical creature! There is science out there that proves it. Who ever decids to deate me I say good luck and thanks tons!!!
Alex

Con

This is a very interesting debate. Thank you for posting.

But first i need clarification, there are many ideas and theories of different "kinds" of dragons. To which kind are you referring to that existed?
Debate Round No. 1
18freckles

Pro

No problem and Thanks I got bored and thought of something that would be interesting. And you are a good debater so I wish you luck and I hope this will be a fun and surprising debate to others! Um... I didn't know that there would be different types of dragons... I think we should just debate the fact that there were dragons period, back during like the medievel times or middle ages maybe sometime around then.
Going on to say:

Dragons were real back in the day. The did exsist and they are not some fiction animal we read or hear about in stories and what not.
Alex

Con

Well, there are many from a giant snake, to a crocodile to an infantrymen with a musket, all considered dragons as well. But I am going to argue as if you are talking about giant, flying, fire breathing, scale armored dragons.

Well, first off PRO has not stated any evidence that these dragons actually did exist, aside from her own beliefs.

But i will argue anyhow. As described, dragons were supposedly massive creatures, with thick scaled armor and the ability to "breathe fire" If such a creature existed, what happened to them? If were talking about the mid evil times then surely the likes of swords and armor couldn't extinct such a creature, and if they became extinct at a later period then surely we would have records of the, aside from mythological stories.

Also, we have no records of such creatures. The only thing that comes

I would also like to bring up the far fetched idea that a creature could breathe fire, do we see anything like that today? If natural selection is true, than that seems a pretty good trait to keep around. But in my eyes, how could the insides of a creature withstand such an element?
Debate Round No. 2
18freckles

Pro

These dragons went extinct. Men killed them and when they did there wasnt a lot left for two to mate to keep their exsistance alive. And dragons were able to breath fire. Although I do have evidence, its in french. I will tell you what basically its saying and then show the video. Its from discovery channel.

Since dragons were so big and had wings that would not be able to lift them off the ground thus making them fly... their stomachs contained hydrogen since helium is very light weight they were able to fly. Now going on to the breathing fire and what not. Dragons were able to eat platinum. Now hydrogen and platinum combined makes a very big chemical reaction, thus breathing fire.

http://dsc.discovery.com...

look for Dragons: How Dragons fly
on the right hand side
Alex

Con

Okay so lets sum this up, in your first round you tell me dragons exist, with no evidence.

second round you tell me that you mean mid evil dragons.

and third round you tell me that dragons went extinct because men killed them, and that they can fly because they have hydrogen in them, and they can breath fire because they eat platinum.

First off the dragons you claim to have existed do not because we have no scientific proof. And if they still existed in "mid evil times" we would at least have documents of them. And since we supposedly killed them, we would still have the bodies and bones around today as proof.

The Law of Parsimony applies here, since the Law of Parsimony states that the probable, and theory with less assumptions wins, and there has been no sign that it is probable that they existed, as well, there are many assumptions in believing dragons exist. But believing they did not exist, has no assumption. So by the Law of Parsimony, the theory that dragons did not exist wins.

In your video, they say that "hydrogen" gave the dragons the ability to fly, but how could you prove that a small amount of hydrogen could lift such a heavy creature, there is no proof in your argument or in the video.

All in all, you gave no proof of their existence. You tried to prove that these creatures could fly and breath fire with proof that says because they have hydrogen in them and because they could eat platinum. But what proof do we have that they even had hydrogen in them? we have none, because if we did than we would know dragons existed in the first place. And what proof do we have that they could eat platinum? None.

Your theory is based off of believing the improbable that says they had hydrogen in them, i am sorry but that is not proof, that is what you call one possibility of making a creature fly with absolutely no proof that the one possibility was plausible or even possible for that matter, and no proof that they could actually do these things.

You also show no evidence that these dragons actually existed. You only tried to prove what they could do.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
Dragons were dinosaurs, the word dinosaur means 'terrible lizard' which was first spoken in 19th century.
Posted by theitalianstallion 5 years ago
theitalianstallion
Saw that show also. Took me a while to figure out that it was fictional as I was only 11 or 12 when I watched it.

On the other hand, I do believe that some form of large, reptilian did exist along side man for a time. I find it very hard to believe that cultures across the globe have such similar tales of a creature when they had no interaction with each other, if that creature did not exist.
Posted by 18freckles 5 years ago
18freckles
hey it was worth a shot
Posted by DATCMOTO 5 years ago
DATCMOTO
As a Biblical Creationist I of COURSE believe that men and dinosaurs co-existed for many thousands of years.. I believe that ALL the dragon myths (many cultures, including my own [ST George] have dragon stories) are essentially documents of the LAST of the dinosaurs (apart from sea-serpents etc which are still sighted) being hunted and slain for honour etc..
The whole 'fire breathing' thing probably came from false bravado.. (in the 'one that got away' sense) in that the more dangerous the 'dragon' could be made to appear the braver and more valiant the knight or warrior.. When really the 'dragon' was just a lonely and very scared 'big lizard'.
Posted by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
hahahaha

Pro, the Discovery show you cite was fictional and for fun. Fail.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wii_Master_Nin 5 years ago
Wii_Master_Nin
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Bjork-Taco 5 years ago
Bjork-Taco
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by girlforgod21 5 years ago
girlforgod21
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by 18freckles 5 years ago
18freckles
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 5 years ago
ournamestoolong
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by fanusc101 5 years ago
fanusc101
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 5 years ago
trendem
18frecklesAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04