Fire is NOT a living thing
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Rebuttal
Round 5: Closing statements. No new arguments.
Ug believe in fire spirits.
But fire always returns.
If we can emancipate ourselves from typing with the fingers of a caveman that would be excellent.
As I stated in the outline for this debate, we will be judging if fire is alive through a scientific outlook, this is not a metaphysical debate.
The characteristics something needs to posses in order to be considered living is: that it adapts to its environment, it reproduces, it grows, it responds to its environment, it is composed of cells, has different levels of cell organization, and it uses energy (http://infohost.nmt.edu...).
Fire is not alive because-although it does posses some of the characteristics of a living thing- it does posses two of the most indispensable characteristics; which are: cells and cell organization.
For something to be considered alive while peering through our scientific outlook, it must contain all the characteristics of a living thing, therefore, fire does not contain all the characteristics, nor the two most essential characteristics, which proves fire is not alive.
Who this "science" person?
Why no Science come and say to Ug's face?
Friend tell Ug cell is like tiny bug. He say we all made of tiny bug. Ug not so sure, but he show me magic telescope and say many words Ug not understand, like, Di-Ribo Nucleic Acid. But he also say there are little bugs called "virus" that make people sick, do not have "DNA", only "RNA". Some say only thing with DNA alive. Are virus alive?
Power rest with he who decide what life is and is not.
He decide what talk and what no talk back.
Ug hear river flow.
Ug hear birds sing.
Ug hear wind blow.
All these things alive to Ug. All things alive. Only thing that matter is if thing like us, or if thing not like us.
Wolf like us. Hunt in packs. Work together. Care for young.
In wolfs eyes, Ug see own reflection.
When wolf whines, Ug feel sad.
When wolf growls, Ug feel scared.
When wolf howls, Ug howl too.
Fire talks, but Ug no talk back. Fire strange, it not like us.
That no mean fire not alive.
My opponent stated in the comments of this argument ,"I know fire isn't really alive, and I'm not really working within the parameters or context your set forth in your argument." Thus, my opponent has explicitly agreed that he accepts fire is not a living thing, moreover, he agrees that he is not cooperating with the structure set forth which means he is unable to prove me wrong within the context of this scientific debate, and he agrees with the point I made that fire is not alive.
In conclusion, my opponent has agreed that he believes fire is not a living thing. He is an agreement that he cannot prove me otherwise because he admitted that he disagrees with his own point. Furthermore, my opponent did not provide in round two any counterarguments that he backed up with facts. I do not appreciate him not taking the debate seriously because it is a waste of mine, as well as the readers' time.
According to "science", fire not alive.
Ug not sure why "science" get to decide what life is.
Perhaps Ug not ready for "science".
Still, Ug say he who decide what alive and not alive very powerful, like shaman or witchdoctor.
Sometimes Ug smoke too much peace pipe and think rocks mad at him.
Is good to have shaman to say, "Ug, you dumb as rocks."
My prior facts extend foreword into the final round.
Ug suggest install java plug-in.
My opponent has not countered my argument, nor provide any facts towards a counterargument. My opponent is in congruence with my point of view, that is, he explicitly agreed with my point of view and admitted he was wrong.
I feel it is an rather obvious choice to vote for PRO .
I thank anybody who choose to read this.
KBattleson forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct for a forfeited round from Con. Pro gets spelling and grammar for using correct English composition. Pro used logical arguments while Con's were abstract and quite random, giving arguments to Pro. Pro gets sources for using them.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.