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

Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 604 times Debate No: 85826
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)




Tesla was a scientific revolutionary, his theories hold water to this day. Steven Hawking only comes up with falsities.


Saying, "Nikola Tesla is smarter than Stephen Hawking" is like saying, "Milkshakes are better than grapefruit." Just because milkshakes and grapefruit are both considered "food" doesn't mean it makes sense to compare them. What does "better" mean? Better how? Milkshakes are "better" in that they have more calcium; grapefruit is "better" because it has more Vitamin C. Milkshakes are sweeter; grapefruit is healthier.

In the same way, it's silly to have a debate about who is "smarter" because people can be "smart" in many different ways. Tesla was an electrical engineer. Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist. They're both scientists who made discoveries and came up with theories just like milkshakes and grapefruit are both foods, containing nutrients, that people digest. What kind of "smartness" are we talking about here?

I will argue that Hawking and Telsa are/were both brilliant scientists in their own respective eras & fields. Tesla made incredible contributions to our understanding of electricity (and more) a hundred years ago; Hawking continues to make incredible contributions to our understanding of physics & cosmology today. "Tesla is smarter than Hawking" or "Hawking is smarter than Telsa" are both fatuous statements.

Debate Round No. 1


I measured it on their achievements,
Tesla's achievements:
1. Spoke 8 different languages,
2. Tesla invented wireless electricity,
3. Tesla invented the particle beam
4. Tesla invented AC current
5. Tesla invented the magnetic generator,
6. Tesla invented the radio,
7. Tesla invented the technology that allowed us to make the internet,
8. Tesla was a genius physicist that devised theories that are credible and testable.

Steven Hawking's achievements:
1. Speaks one language,
2. Supported the Big Bang theory but when he found out it makes no sense whatsoever he came up with a theory that says that particles came from nowhere and that's how the universe was created.


You "measured it on their achievements"? So you think people who are "smarter" will necessarily achieve more? That's not true. Your argument that Tesla achieved more, therefore Tesla is smarter than Hawking is just plain wrong.

Furthermore, who gets to decide what counts as an "achievement"? You? Stephen Hawking developed a mathematical proof for black holes, proved Einstein's theory of general relativity, and proved that the universe has no boundaries. But apparently none of these deserve a spot on your list of "Steven Hawking's achievements."

About your list of "Steven Hawking's achievements": it proves how ignorant you are. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean you obviously don't know very much about Stephen Hawking, if you think his only achievement (other than "speaking one language") is "supporting" the Big Bang theory and then coming up with "a theory that says that particles came from nowhere and that's how the universe was created."
Debate Round No. 2


1). We already knew black holes existed.

2). Einsteins relativity was already proven.

3). We already knew the universe has no boundaries.


For argument's sake, let's pretend you're right: Stephen Hawking never made any important contributions to science, and his list of achievements is small and petty compared to Tesla's. Does that prove that Tesla is smarter than Hawking? No, it doesn't. Being smarter does not necessarily mean you achieve more in your life. Some very intelligent people are underachievers. Other people accomplish a great deal, despite not being blessed with exceptional intelligence.

Tesla's achievements are easy for anyone to appreciate. You don't need a sophisticated understanding of science or technology to understand that "Tesla invented the radio." Any layman knows what a radio is, so any layman will be impressed by Tesla's achievement.

In order to properly appreciate Stephen Hawking's achievements, you need to know at least a few things about physics and cosmology. Hawking's achievements must be described using terms like "quantum fluctuations" and "wave functions" and "singularities." Unless you know what these terms mean, you won't be able to appreciate Hawking's contirbutions to science. You won't understand why Hawking is so highly esteemed, and naturally you will be more impressed with Nikola "I Invented the Radio" Tesla.

That's the issue here. You're more impressed with Nikola Tesla because you don't know enough about science to be able to comprehend Stephen Hawking's significance. Stephen Hawking's achievements are unfathomable to you. That's why you think Nikola Tesla is "smarter."

Debate Round No. 3


I know what a singularity and all that is, and I can tell you that it is unprovable, if it is unprovable, it is not science. Science is making observations, then making a conclusion, your conclusion has to be provable, if it is not provable, the "research" goes out the window, it cannot be regarded as science.
Tesla's theories were all provable. I would bet you don't understand Tesla's contributions, because you neglect to acknowledge that he was also a physicist, who's theories are completely logical, fathomable,rational, and provable.
Now, just because everyone knows what a radio is, does not subtract the brilliance of it, for one, every fool knows what a computer is, does this subtract from Bill Gate's achievements.
Plus, look at the technology of the day, look at what people could fathom, and the knowledge available, this is well beyond anything Hawking ever did.


Sure, you can tell me you know what a singularity is. Of course you can tell me it's unprovable. I could tell you that Nikola Tesla was a fraud who stole all of his ideas from someone else. Just because I tell you something doesn't make it true. Provide some evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen Hawking's work "cannot be regarded as science."

The Copley Medal is awarded for "outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science." Stephen Hawking won the Copley Medal in 2006. The Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize is "to recognize outstanding contributions to physics." Hawking won this prize in 1999. The Albert Einstein Award "was an award in theoretical physics that was established to recognize high achievement in the natural sciences." Who won this prize? Stephen Hawking, in 1978. The Fundamental Physics Prize is "the most lucrative academic prize in the world." Stephen Hawking won this prize (millions of dollars) "for his discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes, and his deep contributions to quantum gravity and quantum aspects of the early universe."

But according to you, Hawking is a pseudoscientist! So, your theory is that Stephen Hawking duped everyone into awarding him all of these prizes for scientific achievement. I guess the people who give out the Fundamental Physics Prize are so incompetent, they don't even know the proper definition of "science." Seriously? It's far more likely that your notions about what "cannot be regarded as science" are erroneous.

Tesla was a great scientist. I never said his inventions were unimpressive. I said that his achievements are easier to appreciate than the "discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes" or "deep contributions to quantum gravity and quantum aspects of the early universe."

Debate Round No. 4


1). Singularity cannot be proven, until you have demonstrated singularity, it has not been proven. Steven Hawking just came along and said "singularity is true," the people say that's proof. How did he prove singularity?

2). Not one of Steven Hawking's theories have been proven, he just walked along and said that this is how it is, he never experimented it. His theories are not science, science is when you make observations then you make a conclusion. Steven Hawking just wrote on a chalk board and said "it's proven, I proved it." That's not science.

3). Wining awards doesn't prove anything, Adolf Hitler was on time magazine, what an accomplished individual.

4). How did Steven Hawking discover Hawking radiation from black holes.

5). Science is when you prove something, Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity, that can be proven [1], Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity that can be proven, Steven Hawking's theories, they cannot be proven.

6). They are easier to appreciate because they make sense.



Singularity cannot be proven, until you have demonstrated singularity, it has not been proven. Steven Hawking just came along and said "singularity is true," the people say that's proof. How did he prove singularity?

Your grammar here indicates that you don't know what a singularity is. Stephen Hawking would never say "singularity is true" because that would be like saying "unicorn is true," i.e. gramatically incorrect. You don't "prove singularity" just like you don't "prove unicorn."

If you take yourself seriously, why don't you go to the people who awarded Stephen Hawking millions of dollars for his outstanding contributions to science, and inform them that "his theories are not science." Give them your definition of science: "Science is when you prove something." Let them know "singularity is unprovable." If you're correct, they should take away Hawking's multi-million dollar prize. Maybe they'll give it to you.

So far, I have read two of Hawking's books: "A Brief History of Time" and "The Grand Design." These books were written for ordinary people like me. They're very interesting! Read either of these books and you'll get an idea of how brilliant Stephen Hawking really is. He's no pseudoscientist. He earned his reputation as one of the greatest.

I'm sure Nikola Tesla is "smarter" than Stephen Hawking in certain ways, just like Hawking is "smarter" than Tesla in other ways. Both of these men made important contributions to science, in different areas. It is just plain silly to claim that one is "smarter" than the other, overall.

Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
>Reported vote: condeelmaster// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully showed that both scientists were smart in their own way and that neither was smarter, negating the resolution. Pro's arguments were biased. His way of measuring smartness is rather subjective and ineffective. Con took advantage of this in order to debunk the resolution. The burden of proof was on Pro, and he couldn't prove his point, thus Con wins. Grammar goes to Con because he used correct grammar, while Pro had some errors.

[*Reason for removal*] The explanation for S&G is insufficient. The only reason this point should ever be awarded is if one side had so many errors that their argument was difficult to read, not if they just had some minor errors.
Posted by squonk 8 months ago
Be more specific. Which quotes, from Einstein, indicate that he thought there was a good possibility of the existence of God? Einstein did not believe in anything like the God of Christianity.
Posted by harrytruman 8 months ago
Quotes here:
Posted by squonk 8 months ago
Which quotes?
Posted by harrytruman 8 months ago
Quotes amigo.
Posted by squonk 8 months ago

What did he write? What are these conclusions based on?
Posted by harrytruman 8 months ago
It was a conclusion based on what he wrote.
Posted by squonk 9 months ago
I have already proven that Einstein said "fear evokes religious notions" and that gods are "illusory beings" created by "the human mind." Maybe you don't know: "illusory" means "based on illusion; not real."

Einstein said, "The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God." Long story short, Einstein's opinion on god(s) was that humans invented god(s) because humans are fearful and desire guidance, love, and support.

Do you have any evidence to support your position? Where/when did Einstein ever say/write "I think there is no way to prove or disprove God, but I think there is a good possibility of the existence of God, but there is no way to be sure." ???
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
Correction, Einstein swayed back and forth between deism and agnosticism,
he thought not only that there was no way to prove or disprove G-d, he thought that there was a good possibility of the existence of G-d, but there is no way to be sure,
Similar to Tesla, super geniuses think alike I guess.
Posted by squonk 9 months ago
You said Einstein believed in God. To support this assertion, you quote a comment from Einstein that was re: quantum physics, NOT theology. I quoted Einstein actually speaking on the subject of "Religion and Science" and it's extremely clear that Einstein thought that the gods of religion are made-up by humans for emotional reasons. Saying the word "God" doesn't make you a theist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bolas 8 months 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar are tied for both sides. Con had better conduct since Pro, who had the BOP, did not give simple information. Such as the definition of achievement. Points to Con for Conduct. Con made more convincing arguments for the reason that he made arguments that Pro simply refuted based on Pro's own definitions. (Which were not given) Points to Con for more convincing arguments. Sadly, I have to award Pro points for using a single source which makes him win in that category by default.