The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Fire and water ARE living things.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,440 times Debate No: 36561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




I believe that Fire and Water are NOT living things.
My 1st point is that fire and water can NOT reproduce,and all living things must be able to reproduce.

My 2nd point is that water and fire are not made up of cells and all living things must be made out of cells in order to be classified as a living thing.

My 3rd point is that fire and water do not eat or drink and all living things must be able to eat and drink.

There fore I believe that water and fire are NOT living things.


1. Fire and water can both reproduce. Fire can create new fire. For example, if a wooden stick in placed into a bonfire, the stick will catch fire, a new fire which is not identical to the first. The original fire is a bonfire, but the new one is a wood fire If the stick is then thrown onto a haystack, the haystack will burst into flames, creating yet another new fire, a hay fire.
Water can also create new water. Clouds, for example, are made of water vapor. But if the moisture within the cloud reaches a certain threshold relative to air temperature, the water vapor will condense and fall out the pregnant cloud as little raindrops. A raindrop is not identical to a cloud; it is a new form of water.

2. Fire and water are both made of cells. Cells are the constituent units of living things. Fire and water are both constituted of basic units. Fire is nothing more than a combustion reaction, and the resulting flame is the visible manifestation of the reaction. The intense heat of the fire vaporizes the fuel source, and, as the vaporized fuel interacts with air particles (free atoms and molecules), a glowing flame is produced. The glow is light emitted from the exited electrons of the air particles. In other words, the basic unit of a flame is the particles of air. Those particles can be thought of as a type of cell, the basic unit of the existent flame.
Water is also composed of basic units. These units are called molecules, and they are of the form HOH (hydrogen hydroxide).

3. ALL living things do not need to eat and drink. Cyanobacteria neither eat not drink, yet they are most certainly alive. Therefore, fire and water can still be considered living things though they neither eat nor drink.

Fire and water can be considered alive.
Debate Round No. 1


1st of all you said that fire and water can both reproduce and that fire can create new fire.There is no such thing as a boy fire and a girl fire that had sexual intercourse to make another baby fire.It cant reproduce.

You also said that water can reproduce well it cant because there's no such things as a boy water and a girl water they cant have sexual intercourse.Also you said something about the pregnant cloud.Well that's not true either.

If you looked clicked the link then you would have seen a picture of the water cycle and how it works.The water evaporates from lakes etc,and then it forms into a cloud.While its forming into a cloud its cleaning the SAME water and making it fresh again.Once the cloud gets heavy full of water it precipitates.So its not making a new droplet.We have been drinking the same water that the Dinosaurs have been drinking.

Also you said that Fire and water are made up of cells.They are actually not made up of cells.They don't need a mitochondria because they don't need respiration.They don't need a cell wall because they don't need structure because its water.

Also Cyanobacteria is also known as blue-green bacteria or blue-green algae.Algae eat things.So Cyanobacteria is an algae and algae make there own food by a process called photosynthesis.Cyanobacteria utilize the energy of sunlight to drive photosynthesis, a process where the energy of light is used to split water molecules into oxygen, protons, and electrons. While most of the high-energy electrons derived from water are utilized by the cyanobacterial cells for their own needs, a fraction of these electrons are donated to the external environment via electrogenic activity. Cyanobacterial electrogenic activity is an important microbiological conduit of solar energy into the biosphere.

So ALL living things must be able to eat and drink.
Also Cyanobacteria does eat things.
In conclusion Fire and Water are not living things.


Sexual intercourse is not necessary for reproduction. A "boy" and a "girl" are not necessary. For example, bacteria can reproduce asexually via binary fission. Fire and water reproduce themselves asexually, as demonstrated during the first round.

I know what the water cycle is. In your original argument, you simply said that water cannot reproduce. You failed to preclude one form of water producing a different form of water, a type of reproduction.

Mitochondria are not necessary for life. There exist amitochondrial organisms which lack mitochondria. A cell wall is not necessary for life either. Humans do not have cell walls, but they are alive. Because there are living things which lack mitochondria and some which lack cells walls, fire and water do not need either in order to be considered living things.

Cyanobacteria don't eat, per se; they're autotrophs. They derive their energy from the sun, but that is not akin to eating. Saying that blue-green algae eats is like saying a car drinks gasoline. It's not technically correct.

Besides, you're modifying your definition of "living thing." You're committing the goal post fallacy. Don't add new criteria to the argument.
Debate Round No. 2


You said that water and fire reproduce asexually.This is not true.Fire does have some characteristics of a living thing but not ALL of them.If you don't have ALL of these characteristics than you are NOT a living thing.Fire can move and grow bigger so when another spark or fire comes then its the same things but its just moved.Fire does NOT have a mitochondria,Nucleus,Blood cells etc. Which means its NOT made up of cells.

Fire can move and grow but it can NOT reproduce,excrete,respire,and it doesn't have a circulation system.(it cant eat or drink.)
Same goes with water,water cant reproduce,excrete,respire and it doesn't have a circulation system. Its NOT a living thing.

A non-living living thing. In order for water to be a living thing it needs to pass the four tests listed below. ( Got this from my 7th grade science book)

1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA.

2. All life forms have a method by which they take energy from the surroundings, and convert it into energy that helps them live.

3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.

4. All life forms reproduce.

As we can see water can't reproduce, can't take in energy to make it live, and does not have DNA. In order to make be classified as a living thing, it can't even not pass one test; it has to pass all four. But water does pass the third test, since the water crystals react to words and music. (Find out more at Dr. Emtemo's website about water crystals.)

Overall we can obviously conclude that water is not a living thing.

Also Cyanobacteria do eat things! They make there own FOOD by using Photosynthesis.It eats!

So in conclusion Water and Fire is Not a living thing
Here is a link of a teacher/scientist talking about living and non living things.Please click the link below.

Thank you.


You're moving the goal posts. It's a logical fallacy. In your original argument, you gave three reasons supporting your claim that fire and water are not living things. However, when I successfully exploited your inaccurate definitions and assumptions, you introduced new reasons, in addition to the original three, in order to support your claim. The proper way to conduct a debate is to defend your original points, not to invent new ones.

Other than the fallacy, all you did was repost the same argument from round two. You ignored my rebuttal from the second round, so I have nothing new to say.


As a disclaimer, I fully understand that fire and water are not considered living things. But your presented reason is fallacious and unconvincing.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stealthy2118 2 years ago
The funnies part is you both use the rules to classify living things and it states that something must be able to reproduce. A mule cannot reproduce, so technically it is not alive. But it most obviously is, so you can easily throw some of the rules out the metaphorical window. Water, not alive. Fire, alive. Fire can use energy, move to get it, and create more of itself. It also grows. So, fire is alive, water is not.
Posted by boom101 5 years ago
what the hell is this world turning into... Fire and Water are non-living things... it's a fact, and i repeat, a fact cannot be debated on... oh Lord, this disaster...
Posted by countzander 5 years ago
Cell. noun. Any of various small compartments or bounded areas forming part of a whole.

The particles which make up water and fire fit that definition. The instigator failed to specify an appropriate definition of cell. ;)
Posted by kazmo 5 years ago
"Fire and water are both made of cells. Cells are the constituent units of living things." No, fire does not contain cells. Cells ARE the basis of all living things but there are no cells in fire or water. You're thinking about atoms because atoms make up everything. Atoms make up cells but cells don't make up atoms. Fire and water does not have a nucleus or anything a cell should have.
Posted by wolfman4711 5 years ago
Why in blue hell?
Posted by boom101 5 years ago
ya.. I read them... though, can you delete these messages... I don't think Con would want to read this... :/

thank you for your compliment, just, its funny, and hard to see so much... uh well
Posted by sahaam 5 years ago
Keep reading the debates as well.
Posted by sahaam 5 years ago
Thanks for the support :)
Posted by sahaam 5 years ago
Boom101 you are way to kind!
Posted by boom101 5 years ago
I seriously don't know what was running on your mind Pro...

ya.. I noticed.... good luck Pro.. you'll need it... as Con won't...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 5 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything was rather equal. Pro did, however refute every claim. Con made weak and unwarranted claims, like said they can not reproduce because their isn't a boy and girl cloud..................... ya..... Con shifted the Goal Poles, and so loses Conduct.