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

Fire is NOT a living thing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/15/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,056 times Debate No: 36712
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)




This debate will be directed towards more of a scientific outlook.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Rebuttal
Round 5: Closing statements. No new arguments.


Ug disagree with puny hairy man.
Ug believe in fire spirits.

Fire consumes.
Fire dances.
Fire grows.
Fire dies.
But fire always returns.
Debate Round No. 1


The tendency to illustrate your vague points in barbaric sentences is both amusing and absurd.

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 (

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.


Why only you decide what life is?
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.
Debate Round No. 2


"Why only you decide what life is?" Science decides what the scientific definition of life is, and the official scientific definition is the one I provided. Keep in mind, this is a debate within a scientific structure, not a metaphysical debate.

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.


Ug concede point to puny hairy man.
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."
Debate Round No. 3


My primitive opponent has stated "concede point" and "according to "science", fire not alive." He agrees with me, thus proving him wrong.

My prior facts extend foreword into the final round.


Ug no find "concede" button.
Ug suggest install java plug-in.
Debate Round No. 4


This has been an all around strange display on my opponents part.

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.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by D.Wolf 3 years ago
"Let this be another lesson, no matter how charismatic, well-mannered or high spoken a man may be, it does not make him right. (And fortunately for my opponent, the opposite is also true." I certainly hope you are not referring to me when you say "my opponent." It is in no way my fault that you choose to put on a display of nonsensical and comical arguments that wasted my time. I do not mean to be insulting, but you have obviously wasted my time by putting forth, on purpose, an illogical and senseless argument.

I wish you luck in the future.
Posted by KBattleson 3 years ago
so very humble...

it is nice to know i have lost to such a gentleman. Let this be another lesson, no matter how charismatic, well-mannered or high spoken a man may be, it does not make him right. (And fortunately for my opponent, the opposite is also true)
Posted by D.Wolf 3 years ago
KBattleson, my caveman friend with duller insults than your debating technique, I am rather concerned about your mental health, and I say this respectively. If you disagreed with my debate topic in the first place why would you challenge me, and then proceed to illustrate nonsense, then agree with my point of view, and than attempt to make a feeble insult? I hope in the future you are able to develop your debating technique, also, I hope you learn how to lose respectively.
Posted by KBattleson 3 years ago
This is just an aside, but if you need to be told fire isn't "alive", then your parents shouldn't let you within 10 feet of a stove, much less a budsen burner.
Posted by KBattleson 3 years ago
Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to my high school science teacher. He was a nice guy who really tried hard at his job, and we had this exact same argument. I really should have simply deferred to his age and experience and allowed him to lecture without hassling him. Also, I missed 3 months of class and got a c on the final.

But to be fair, my homelife was a nightmare, and high school seemed like a joke at the time.
Posted by KBattleson 3 years ago
To be honest, I may be guilty of having a little fun at your expense, I know fire isn't really alive, and I'm not really working within the parameters or context your set forth in your argument. But i think thats the first rule of debate, is that you don't get to set the context of your argument, your audience does.
Posted by KBattleson 3 years ago
So you're saying that a computer program that could think and was aware would not be alive because it has no cellular structure? I think the killbots might take issue with that...

Science has a very narrow definition of what constitutes life that excludes a whole host of possibilities.

To take a more realistic example, its been theorized that silicon based life could exist. Scienstists have long thought that only carbon, with its 4 valence electrons able to make the various chemical pairings in organic matter, could occur in such abundance as to allow organic life to exist. But Silicon has similiar pairings, and might allow for even more complex forms of life to exist.

And spare me your "achems razor" bit. Earth is the place you go where you lock the doors and windows on your spaceship.
Posted by D.Wolf 3 years ago
@ Bruinshockeyfan
Just from the definition you provided, there are many ways one could argue that fire IS alive. For example, if fire requires oxygen, and living things require oxygen, therefore could a point not be made that fire is alive? Although I am opposed to the belief that fire is alive, and will refrain from providing any more examples that could in turn fuel my potential opponents argument.

I am not sure if your username exactly backs up your profile picture, but perhaps your username is referring to your debate technique (I sure hope so because the profile picture doesn't do you any justice).
Posted by Irresistable 3 years ago

Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
According to heres the defonition of fire

a state, process, or instance of combustion in which fuel or other material is ignited and combined with oxygen, giving off light, heat, and flame.

Nothing about life in there.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
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 
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.