The Instigator
simpleguy
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
WorldWar2Debator
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Rocks are living

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 4 votes the winner is...
simpleguy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,911 times Debate No: 48667
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

simpleguy

Pro

First around acceptance only. Last round rebuttal only.
WorldWar2Debator

Con

I accept. Please begin with your opening statement
Debate Round No. 1
simpleguy

Pro

Welcome and thank you for accepting this debate.

Let's start by defining what it means to be living to start with:

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or else they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate[1].

Let's now look to the oxford dictionary to see the requirements of proving something is living.

The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death[2].

If I can prove all of these things, then rocks must be living.

1) A capacity to grow

Over time, as minerals are deposited onto the rock, the rock becomes larger and larger. It may also shrink as a result of wind and water. This is quite an obvious point.

2) Reproduction

One rock can eventually split into two rocks due to outside elements. Once split, they are completely independent of themselves, like every other living thing.

3) Functional activity

Let's first look at the definition of these words, as I had to in making this argument.

A task or act that allows one to meet the demands of the environment and daily life[3]. Now, we can see that rocks are very durable creatures, and there really isn't much they need to do to survive in their environment. They just sit there. However, they do respond to outside forces. For example, when another solid body touches a rock, local stress in the rock rises. When light hits the rock, heat is added, another physical process.

4) Undergo metabolism, thus continual change

Metabolism is defined as the chemical processes by which a plant or an animal (a rock in this case) uses food, water, etc., to grow and heal and to make energy[2]. This also happens in the rock, over a long time. Minerals in the rock eventually succumb to internal pressure, creating new structures and compounds to be formed. Due to this chemical process, energy is produced, and the rock is also seen to physically change in size.

As you can see here, rocks are clearly living and I do not see why everyone has to treat them like objects, it must be very degrading for them.


WorldWar2Debator

Con

I'd like to question Pro over his sources on proof about the four factors that he believe make a rock living. True, these four factors do prove a lot when you're deciding if something is living, but I would like to ask Pro this: get a little pebble, just enough to notice. Now leave it out in the backyard/garden and see if it grows over time. See if it even moves over time. Let me ask all followers of this debate: according to Dictionary.com, a rock is a large mass of stone forming a hill, cliff, promontory or the like. So I put it to you: Anyone who knows a stone hill: known it well, has you noticed it "grow"? Have you noticed it has strangely moved 2 feet since your first visit? I highly doubt so.
Debate Round No. 2
simpleguy

Pro

I would firstly like to apologise to Con, I have forgot to put the source links at the bottom of my previous argument. Here they are now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

I will now highlight the follies of my opponent's argument, as it is obvious rocks are living. He tells me to get a little pebble and leave it in my backyard to see if it grows over time. Over time, as minerals carried by rain water are sprinkled onto the rock, it will grow bigger or become smaller. Although the growth difference may not be noticeable in my lifetime, a rock has a much greater lifespan than the average living thing. Think about this, over the next thousand of years, are you saying the rock won't change at all? Of course it will, that is how mountains are made. Furthermore, the pebble will move when it is blown around by the wind, not that it has anything to do with whether the rock is alive or not. Physically moving is not a requirement to prove something is living (But rocks still do that). Regarding the stone hill aspect, of course it will grow, how do you think it became a hill in the first place? It did not magically 'come to be', it developped from a tiny mound of rock to what it is today. We should truly marvel at these fascinating creatures.
WorldWar2Debator

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his comments, and my rebuttals are as follow:

Pro hasn't informed us of the fact that a large amount of tiny pebbles create a hill, not one massive one.

Also, I have never seen a rock reproduce. How does one divide itself, or mate? Dividing isn't even considered reproducing, that is the division of a rock.

I believe in 2 simultaneous theories of rocks: the Big Bang, or the creation by God. I don't see how an object that cannot move multiply. It baffles me, and possibly many others, at the thought of rocks living. I understand physical contact/movement isn't one of the basic requirements of the definition of living, but isn't movement sort of like one of the things reproduction requires? When a rock seperates, would it still occupy the same space, or would it move strangely? If the latter, I question how the rock would move in doing so.
Debate Round No. 3
simpleguy

Pro

As this is the last round, I will simply summarise my arguments and my opponent's previous rebuttals in a simple manner so that it will be clearly evident to all that rocks are alive.

I have provided a definition for life and the conditions necessary to prove life, neither of which have been challenged or replaced by Con. Con has not challenged number 3 or 4, that is, functional activity or the undergoing of metabolism. Con has challenged 1) the capacity to grow, but as I have clearly shown in my examples, rocks can grow. It does not matter how small the amount of growth is in a rock, if it grows even a little due to chemical processes, then it has shown growth. Since rocks are composites of minerals, and minerals 'grow' when more mineral is deposited, rocks grow[1].

So now, all that remains is point number 2) Reproduction. Con starts off by saying that they have never seen a rock reproduce, but that does not mean it cannot happen. I have not seen Con in person, but that does not mean he does not exist. He then quotes "2 simultaneous theories of rocks: the Big Bang, or the creation of God." but I do not see how these two theories are relevant to the question of reproduction at all. Objects do not need to exhibit physical movement to multiply. In terms of reproduction itself, you need only think of human reproduction. What happens when a woman makes a baby? The baby is pulled from inside her, and thus two separate entities are created[2]. Now we can look at the example of a rock. When a rock is separated by acid or other natural occurences, two rocks are created. You could say they are still two rocks cut in half, but you could also say that a son simply comes from her mother's body (father's semen too, but asexual reproduction exists as well [3]). After the rock is split, due to movement of wind and rain over hundreds, thousands and millions of years, these rocks are blown far and wide apart, and they continue to reproduce through separation of acids.

Since I have now proved contentions 1), 2), 3), 4) I have thus demonstrated the requirements to satisfy the hypothesis of rocks being living creatures. I thank my opponent for this thrilling debate and hope he sees the world in a new light.

[1] http://naturescienceguy.hubpages.com...;
[2] http://health.howstuffworks.com...;
[3] https://www.princeton.edu...;
WorldWar2Debator

Con

My opponent has raised points too strong for me to rebuff. Since I have almost no hope and as a rightful person I forfeit this debate.

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him the best in all of his future debates.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by simpleguy 3 years ago
simpleguy
@Frichka, sponges (the animal) do not have a nervous system and agnotozoa do not have organs. Recognising that, this was obviously a joke debate to see if my opponent could disprove my logic, which in this case, unfortunately failed to.
Posted by Frikcha 3 years ago
Frikcha
I'm no scientist but doesn't something need to have a nervous system or at least some kinds of organs to be classified as "Alive"
Posted by simpleguy 3 years ago
simpleguy
Discovering a plethora of new living things should be a happy occasion Tulbakra!
Posted by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
these debates are getting sadder and sadder
Posted by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
these debates are getting sadder and sadder
Posted by Theunkown 3 years ago
Theunkown
i wonder what pro writes..
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
simpleguyWorldWar2DebatorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con respectfully concedes in the final round.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
simpleguyWorldWar2DebatorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
simpleguyWorldWar2DebatorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
simpleguyWorldWar2DebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: As strange as admitting it is; pro made a rather good case that Con didn't refute and ended with a concede I guess in the final round. Pro was the only one to use sources, but both parties showed great conduct and spelling/grammar.