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

Is science subjects harder than humanity subjects?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 92723
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




The first round is introductory:
Hi, I use the pseudonym Catherine Morland from the book Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen, as this character reflects my personality rather well :) :)
I shall be arguing against :)
Can't wait to hear your thoughts!


Well, since the first round is introductory, I too will greet whomever decides to read, and perhaps even vote in this.
I am not, however, going to pick and use a pseudonym from a novel like my opponent, as I honestly find that quite curious, and perhaps a little ludicrous as well.
And yet, I find myself interested by both the abundance of emoticons, and the selection of the fictional character, especially her gender.

Suffice to say, I will be arguing that Science Subjects are indeed harder than Humanity Subjects,
while I hope we will get to define both of these fields, and what exactly we mean by "harder".

As for how you may wish to call me, a single dot will suffice. After all, anonymity provides us with all that we need to be truly honest with ourselves, and our beliefs.

I'm eagerly awaiting for this to begin,
Debate Round No. 1


Before, I'd begin I'd like to compliment my opponent's sarcastic style of writing and their intrigue in my use of emoticons....
Now, that's intriguing...

Firstly, I shall define hard as "requiring a great deal of effort". There is wide belief that English subjects are far easier, yet does anyone understand the amount of research, analysis and techniques required for essays?
A good essay.
I've often been told that writing an essay should mimic the structure of a science report, yet many people believe the gap between english and science is very hard. Don't I use evidence in my society and culture essays? Don't I make a hypothesis in my society and culture essay? Don't I interpret data when I collect results from the interviews I conduct? Don't I create graphs when I collect these data?
I believe that science and maths subjects are far easier... it's straightforward and all you need is to punch a few numbers in a calculator and voila! While, in humanity subjects you are REQUIRED to untangle to hidden meaning and symbolism of words.
If English was so easy, why is it known to be on of the hardest languages to learn?
People at my school of Indian origin who have grown up revering science and maths subjects deem me and others who do humanity subjects as stupid as they are "easy". Yet, it is a lack of knowledge and a severe case of narrowmindness that has resulted in this assumption.


You are too kind, Catherine, and yet I assure you what you detected as sarcasm was my honest scepticism. I assume that is what you sought, wanting to debate and all?

I am glad you defined "harder" as in "harder to study", or as you call it; "requiring a great deal of effort". Of course it is quite hard to quantify effort, and yet teachers have been doing it since the dawn of education. I am of course talking about grading.

The first thing I would like to show you is an article by The Guardian, about the results of a research by Durham University.
[ ]
It seems that students get higher grades easier in Humanity Subjects, in Arts and the like, than Science Studies. So, Science Studies are harder than the Humanity ones.

As for the belief of "English subjects", as you named them, being considered easier, I would have to agree. And the reason is simple; it is a fact. Since you brought the specific example of writing an essay, I will do the same with Astrophysics. Yes, you are right, writing essays is hard, but doing so is subjective. An essay about the death penalty, for instance, can be written with many different ways, either being pro or con. In contrary, trying to understand the secret workings of the universe with Astrophysics is not only more arduous of a task, but a very specific one.

Perhaps here, you would try to say that writing an essay requires abstract thinking, that my example of Astrophysics is much too formulaic to be useful to me. However, in reality, Science has a sort of abstraction that is sometimes scary. Let me explain. In Humanity Subjects, the set of knowledge is bound by Humans. There is a limit to how much we, as a species, have created, be it essays, opinions, arts and the like. But, Science is boundless. It is a frontier that has to be pushed on and on, into an abstraction that is so abstract we do not even know what it is we do not know.

As for what you personally do when you write an essay, I am sorry, but I cannot take that at face value. I haven't read any of your essays, and perhaps for you -and only- Humanity Subjects are indeed harder than Science. Yet, if you are keen on using personal experience, I will in turn tell you that in an Engineering university, when the students have a free choice of a lesson, they usually pick something from the Department of Philosophy, or even something from the Arts. Why? But you've guessed it, of course. Because for them, whilst trying to escape the sheer volume and difficulty of their default lessons, pick the ones that are easier. They pick the Humanity Subjects.

Believing that Science and Mathematics -and Chemistry, and Engineering, and Astrophysics- requires only punching numbers in, and seeing what comes out from the other end is misguided, to say the least. Remember, you do not have the right to an opinion, you have the right to an informed opinion. At this day and age, the information era, no one is entitled to being ignorant.

Actually, the English language is so easy, it was selected to be the default language of the world. Of course, the vast empire of Britain helped, but so did the simple grammar and the easy vocabulary. That is why everyone -well, almost everyone- is taught English in school. Perhaps you should study Arabic, Mandarin, or Greek, to see how a hard language truly is like.
[ ]

Finally, I would like to mention that, while you blame the others of being narrow-minded, I fear you do the exact same thing with them in return. Especially on that "voila!" part. I think that this subject is far too personal for you, and thus I would like to ask you to give me a few sources that support your opinions on the next round, as I have done with the cornerstone of mine; that inequality of grades is one you cannot simply deny.

I look forward to all that you have to say to defend your opinion next,
Debate Round No. 2


Oh, the Guardian a reputable source aimed for the standard of twelve year olds.... and who doesn't like an outdated article: Jessica Shepherd Tuesday 1 July 2008 09.10 AEST (
a website trying to lure in those trying to learn English by pretending it's not that creating cheap slogans such as: The #1 resource for learners!

My opponent should question their sources before panning them onto me with a pompous air. Is your name aSingledot a reference to the "easiness" of the English language. Is they why you have restored to pictorial form instead of saying full stop?

My opponent has also asked me to provide "evidence" and unfortunately I am let down as it is a MAINSTREAM belief that science is considered harder than English. However, I can provide a source demonstrating why English isn't as hard as it seems
This article has been published from the Oxford Royale Academy and in 2014 compared to my opponent's 2008 article.
While, I shall acknowledge that language such as Arabic, Chinese are incredibly hard to learn (yes, I am very narrowminded) the difficulty of English should not be ignored.
From my very na"ve and ignorant perspective may I note that my opponent is involved in debating or in other words a war of English not science.
I maintain my position that science is overated...why is that one who dresses in a lab coat and call themselves a "doctor" is automatically considered smart and experienced?
Personally, I believe Wikipedia is a reputable source origin
I even edited this article
See paragraph 2.... the third line.

I'm kidding.

Humanity subjects should be appreciated just as much as science subjects.
Why do you think students all study Shakespeare not Vladimir Demikhov, because Shakespeare expresses something of values, themes of universal, human concern. Science by the way is human created.


I am sorry Catherine, I assumed you know how Science works. Excuse me, I will not assume as such any more. It doesn't matter if the article was published yesterday, or ten years ago. When something is scientifically proven, it remains as proof forever. That is how the Scientific Method works. As for the newspaper itself, the publication matters not; the research was conducted by Durham University, not The Guardian.

But let us move on, and since for some reason you don't accept facts when they stare right at you, it's time we move on to the brutal truth. And what is more brutal, or true, than the Markets itself. A graduate of a "Science Subject" will be paid many times more than one with a degree among "Humanity Subjects".
[ ]
And why is that? It's because Humanities are easier to complete, and thus more people pick them. But the positions are limited, so the more people that offer their services the lower the wages drop. On the other end of the spectrum, Sciences are a lot harder, less people choose them, so when they enter the worldwide Market, they are paid more for something only they can do.

I am not going to drop to your level, commenting on why you chose your name, what it tells about your personality, and what are my thoughts about your ethos. I will only reveal that English is not my native language, and yet I needed less than three summers to become proficient in it. That is how easy of a language it is. Still, the second source was there mostly to give you details on what I was saying; I do not have to prove how easy English is. I have to prove that the Sciences are harder to study than the Humanities. Still, here is another source that has the same info; how hard other languages are.
[ ]

No one is ignoring the difficulty of English, but we are comparing it to others; it is lacking. The vocabulary is extremely simple, with many words meaning various things (instead of actually having words for all possible meanings), the grammar doesn't even have genders, the tenses work like legos, nouns don't change if they are used in a nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, or dative manner, and so on and so forth. As for your article, I find it funny you didn't notice that Oxford is best known for their dictionaries -- it would be quite odd indeed if they started saying how easy English is. But still, I have to remind you once again; that this is not what we are debating about.

As for debating using words, yes, that is why language was invented. Sadly, that proves nothing. You cannot calculate the mass of a star with words, and I can't talk with numbers. I think you tried to make some analogy there, but failed miserably. And then, after that point, you make some sort of rhetorical question, one I will try to answer (although it is once again completely out of what we are debating about).

Doctors, who wear lab coats to protect themselves mind you, are considered smart and important, because to get their academic degrees they have study close to ten years. And in the end, the actually go and save people. Engineers need five to six years, Computer Scientists too... while most Arts and Humanities are done between two or three years. If that is not a testament to the sheer volume of knowledge required for a degree, and its difficulty, then what is? I should stress this once more; we respect Doctors because they keep us alive. I doubt you can say the same for any profession under the banner of the "Humanity Subjects".

As for your whole piece with Wikipedia, and the Placebo effect (you should also check the Nocebo effect, it is as interesting) I can't honestly say why would you add it to your round. I advice you to follow the advice you were given, and write essays mimicking the structure of a science report. And a science report always stays on topic.

Sure humanity subjects should be respected, and appreciated, because that is the right thing to do. That still doesn't make them as hard, or as useful as the sciences. As for students studying Shakespeare and not the life of a man who conducted revolutionary transplants, it is because Shakespeare is easier. The reason you don't see Noether's theorem in school [ ] is that it is impossible to comprehend if you don't have a degree in Mathematics, and one in Physics. On the other hand, Shakespeare -although great- is far easier to be taught, as you yourself said, and as it happens to this day in many schools around the world.

Science is human created, yes -- so is all that we could possibly talk about on this subject. But you misunderstood my point. The Humanities are bound by all that our species does. That limitation doesn't apply to science, which has no end.

As a final thought, I would like you to imagine a world where tomorrow, all people with Humanities degrees vanished. And one where all the ones with Science degrees did. In which of the two worlds do you think we'd all die by nuclear radiation after two days? Yes, the world without Arts would be a grey one, but the one without Doctors? Without Programmers? Without Engineers? That world could simply not exist. Still, as I will keep reminding you, I have to prove to you that the Sciences are harder than the Humanities, not more important.
Although, of course they are. Anyone can produce art. Only one person explained Hawking Radiation...
Debate Round No. 3


Was Jane Austen a scientist? Was Shakespeare a scientist? Was Edgar Allan Poe a scientist?
I strongly believe that my fellow, dearest opponent that we have diverging values and we shall never meet eye to eye (I'm guessing your taller than me, because most people are)

Can we agree that science and humanity subjects work hand in hand?

Humanity subjects should not be dismissed so easily as being arty, farty and not requiring much thought. I'd be quite curious to read an intriguing story written by Louis Pasteur. I maintain my position that science is overrated, and many people underestimate the amount of work required to for humanity subjects.

You may easily dismiss my pointing out of your outdated articles, but you must remember to use more careful sources in the future rather than take everything at face-value such as humanity subjects. Biology is a science subject, and yet people identify it as easy as you only have to memorise the content to study. These people say the same about English subjects, that it requires no thought process.
I'm trying to refrain from using the word narrow-minded, but I shall anyway....
Don't you think these people are a tad narrow-minded?
Just like you in easily dismissing the date relevancy of your articles?

Are you a science student?

Maths is another subject that is extremely overrated, I have incidentally dropped maths and have received a lot of comments about myself being stupid as a result. Society deems maths as a necessity, well not unless you plan on doing a law and media degree that I intend on doing.
Yet society also believes by not doing maths will affect your atar, ironically my sister who didn't do maths in her time at high school received a 97.5 atar.


Once again you post a few rhetorical questions, and once again I will reply to them.
Jane Austen was a novelist.
William Shakespeare was a poet, playwright, and even an actor.
Edgar Allan Poe was a writer, an editor, a literally critic, and a poet.
And since you're so keen on randomly listing people that fall under your broad spectrum of humanity subjects, here is a few from the science subjects, who happen to work at close proximity to the Large Hadron Collider.
[ ]
You'll notice they are not as well known as the ones you picked, and yet they have helped this world many times more than Jane, William, or Edgar. You can choose not to believe this, but it is true. CERN has even had some unexpected breakthroughs that helped with the better detection and treatment of cancer. Now, you can read all the poetry in the world, and yet you'll never cure cancer that way.
[ ]

Of course we have different opinions, and I too think you will never accept what is fundamentally true. Because, by doing so, you lessen the apparent importance you have for yourself. Accepting this truth will mean that you'll have to sacrifice some of your ego, something I doubt you're any better in than the average person.

As for if we can agree on those two parts working together, the answer is an affirmative one. And yet, that doesn't make them equal in any way, and as I earlier stated, the world can keep on existing only without one of them. And it is the one you picked to debate against, not for.

Louis Pasteur doesn't have to write an intriguing story to find his place among the greatest men of all time. Every time you buy milk from the supermarket, and later on you drink it, you silently thank him for what he discovered. Every time you get vaccinated, and every time after that you did not die from a presently preventable disease, you silently thank him. In your life, more times than you can ever imagine, you are silently grateful of all those that came before you, and made the world a better place. Sure, some of them made it better by making it more beautiful with their works of art. However, the ones that made it easy and safe for you, those are the ones you are now trying to equate with poets, writers, and novelists.

No, people do not overrate science, and they do not underestimate the work required for the humanities. Because, and you guessed it, compared to science, the work required for the humanities is a joke. Anyone can write an average-to-good story on the internet today. No one can advance today's science without a degree.
How about you take solace in the fact that movie and tv stars (people of the Cinematography Art) are paid many times over than even the most important scientific research teams? And that's not because "science is overrated", but because people like you forget just how important science is.

As for your example of Biology being easy, that is because schools cherry-pick the easiest parts of it to teach. They pick the parts that one could learn by heart, because the rest is impossible to understand without a vast knowledge of Chemistry, and sometimes even Medicine. For example, this is an image out of the Science of Biochemistry, that shows Human Metabolism. You should probably zoom in a little bit...
[ ]

At that point, you suddenly ask me a personal question, and this comes after a comment you made about your own height. I have no interest in you, and you should have no interest in me. All that matters is the debate; if humanities are harder than science. And other than speaking about "overrated" science and "overrated" mathematics, and "narrow minded" people and me being "dismissive" of your ludicrous opinions about the dates of scientific discoveries, you haven't mentioned the very thing we are supposedly debating about in your forth round. I am disappointed, even; I expected more from someone obviously so personally connected to this subject.

Now, for that last thing you said about Mathematics being overrated, and what your sister did or didn't do, or if society deems you as an imbecile for giving up on what is basically the cornerstone of Science -- I will abstain from commenting. Not only because it is completely unrelated to this debate, but because it is your personal opinion, one that -although false- I believe you will never change. Because to change something, you have to understand it. And since you've given up, I doubt you understand anything harder than derivatives. How about you admit to yourself you gave Maths up not because they are "useless", but because they are hard. Harder than English, perhaps?

Please, on the final round, if you'd like, provide more sources that support your original claim, or at least speak about the new source I gave you in the previous round (about the wages and their correlation to the difficulty of those subjects, as set by the impartial worldwide Market).

I hope you have a hidden ace for your last post, or I fear you picked one too many rounds. Out of politeness, in my last post, I will not provide additional sources or ideas, but I invite you to do so regardless. Since you have all but properly used this poor forth round.
Debate Round No. 4


CatherineMorland forfeited this round.


As if evident by my opponent's forfeit, she doesn't have anything to say. And I don't mean she doesn't have anything *additional* to say, I meant what I just said. She never supported her own claim, and instead tried to change the subject over and over again.

I have shown that students get better grades easier in Humanity Subjects,
I have shown that people with Humanity Subjects degrees get paid less,
and I have mentioned how their universities last considerably less.

It all points to what we all know, that Science Subjects are harder than Humanity Subjects.
Please vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
or science does science after having created itself
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
there is no science without humanity..
Posted by Weed777 2 years ago
I dont think any one subject is harder than the other. I have seen people who do well in one do badly in the other. It all depends on individual talent and persue of interest.

It really take people who are good at humanity and people are good at science working together to advance humanity. They are both equally important. It takes people good in science to come up with engineering solutions, but it usually take people who are good at humanity to bring together the resources required to execute it.

I think both is equally hard to do well.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
ahh ok.. i knew they were there doing calculations...
Posted by CatherineMorland 2 years ago
The way in which you talk vi_spex is quite like a dog chasing its own tail...
it doesn't make sense
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
the snails on venus dont observe or calculate based on observation of berries on earth
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
Posted by CatherineMorland 2 years ago
English teachers mark differently.... are you a favourite of thiers, are you in a bad class, what grade are you even in...? the teachers go easy on students of a lower grade.
Posted by Samcoder1 2 years ago
Sciences require actually learning material. Humanities have a much greater degree of flexibility with subjective marking, and very obscure mark schemes. Too often in my English class, I could write virtually anything and still get some marks for having a try and for quality of writing. In sciences, it doesn't matter how you art it up, if you are wrong, you are wrong.
No votes have been placed for this debate.