The Instigator
induced
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Dovahkiin117
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Fire should qualify as a lifeform

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Dovahkiin117
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 30289
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

induced

Pro

round 1: acceptance
round 2: my arguments. your aruments and rebuttals
round 3: rebuttals. no new arguments
Debate Round No. 1
induced

Pro

these are potentially the criteria to classify life: life is composed of cell/s, uses energy, grows, reproduces, adapts to its environment through evolution, responds to stimuli, and has movement.
let's look at these individually:

1. composed of cell/s.
-theoretically, if there was an intelligent alien race that didnt have cells, they would still be considered lifeforms, so that criteria shouldn't necessarily be used. one could also make the case that robots with artificial intelligence should be considered alive, and they wouldnt have cells. also, an immaterial being like God wouldnt be considered alive. you may think these things dont exist, but they hypothetically could, so in theory, cells shouldnt necessarily be used to classify livingness.

2. life uses energy
-fire uses fuel like wood or gas.

3. life grows
-fire can grow

4. life reproduces
-fire is not unlike some asexual types of algae where part of it may split off and use ocean currents as a vessel to make an additional clone of itself elsewhere, while fire can use falling debris as a vessel to make a clone of itself elsewhere.

5. life adapts to its environment through evolution
-this criteria shouldn't necessarily be used. let's say theoretically, that humans popped into existence on earth as they are now, without having the capability to evolve. should we not be considered life? something doesnt need to be able to evolve in order to be considered alive.

6. responds to stimuli
-fire reacts to things like pressure and chemicals

7. movement
-fire is very movey

conclusion: since fire passes all the reasonable criteria for life, it should be considered life
Dovahkiin117

Con

Dovahkiin117 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
induced

Pro

induced forfeited this round.
Dovahkiin117

Con

I'm sorry for forfeiting the last round, my power went out due to lightning striking an electrical wire in my neighborhood. Ironically, the lightning bolt also caused a harmless fire that was quickly put down before property damage could happen, anyway, I am going to rebut mu opponents arguments since I gave up my opportunity to present mine.
1. Composed of cells,
Every life form that was classified as such were composed of cells, and no God doesn't count because he can defy all human laws. As for extraterrestrial life, again I reiterate, no classified life form would be able to function w/o cells.
4) Reproduction
Fire cannot reproduce fire without a host, I.e wood, gas, or other fuel sources. In this respect, it is like parasitic viruses, in the USA, viruses are not considered living beings, as they cannot reproduce without a host.
6) movement
My opponent stated that fire is "movey". This does not really mean anything, fire can only move by being moved by an outside force. This could be a scattered fuel supply, wind or any other biotic or abiotic factor that can move the fuel source.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "an immaterial being like God wouldnt be considered alive"

While you point this out as an absurdity of this prong of the definition, many philosophers believe an indestructible, immortal being shouldn't be classified as alive as they are too unlike we the living in too many fundamental ways. You'll find some enlightening articles if you Google that.
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
Dovahkiin117
Good luck to my opponent.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
inducedDovahkiin117Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's FF made this a one-round debate, which is not fair to PRO. Will only vote on the FF.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
inducedDovahkiin117Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provides a definition of life, and claims that fire fails to meet two prongs of that definition, but the two of those prongs are irrelevant. For movement, "fire is very movey" was Pro's only argument. That merely restates the definition, doesn't satisfy the burden of proof, and Con rebutted that point. Arguments to Con. Since both debators forfeited one round, I leave conduct tied.