The Instigator
DATXDUDE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tmurdock
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Science damages curiosity.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Tmurdock
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 336 times Debate No: 82309
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

DATXDUDE

Pro

This is an informal debate. In other words, make your arguments understandable. No kritiks or semantics.

This is also a serious debate. I don't do many of these, but I'd like to see this viewpoint be proven wrong.

First round is acceptance.
Tmurdock

Con

I accept. Good luck opponent. With that let the debate begin!
Debate Round No. 1
DATXDUDE

Pro

Science is based around the idea that everything can be observed and explained. This means that nothing is left up to the imagination. However, if you DON'T believe in science, you are not bound to this viewpoint. If some things can NOT be explained, (For example, the age old question of existence), then the possibilities are limitless, and imagination flourishes. If there is one possibility for everything, however, then nothing is left up to the imagination. Everything has a logical explanation, and curiosity is not needed. The question my opponent and the audience are probably asking themselves is this: "Where is your proof"?

As a kid, I always used to look up at the stars, and I used to wonder what they were and how they worked. As I grew older, my knowledge of science increased, and I gradually gained knowledge of the solar system. Stargazing is still fun to do occasionally, but it is never the same as it was then.

The same probably goes for my opponent and the audience. Maybe it isn't stargazing, but every child has a large amount of curiosity, because they don't know how the world works. None of us really know how the world works, but we are gradually learning with the advancement of science. This is actually a good thing, because we can use this knowledge to make the world a better place. However, it does have a downside, and it is that with every discovery we make, curiosity becomes less and less needed.

Vote Pro.
Tmurdock

Con

Science does not harm curiosity. Science is the outcome of curiosity. Someone wondered something, conducted tests, and found answers. Every sense of curiosity requires experimentation. When something works it is science.
Here is a link that proves what I am saying
http://www.lifehack.org...
Please vote with me
Debate Round No. 2
DATXDUDE

Pro

I was hoping for a more lengthy response, but whatever.

Just because something causes something else doesn't mean that the thing that is caused can't harm the thing that causes it. An example of this is that the nuclear bomb was created by humans, but this doesn't mean that humans can't be harmed by a nuclear bomb.

Vote Pro.
Tmurdock

Con

ladies and gentlemen the topic is science hurts curiosity. My opponent goes off the topic by talking about how curiosity and science harms human. That can be the next debate, but we need to focus on the current topic. The answer is: NO science does not damage curiosity because it is the output of curiosity! Vote NEG!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
DATXDUDETmurdockTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used reasonable points, in which outruled those of Pro. Con took advantage of the two points awarded for using relaible sources, while Pro used no sources at all.