The Instigator
CLJohnson
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cthrek
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Should scientists continue to develop Antiatoms and Antimatter?

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...
Cthrek
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 401 times Debate No: 85313
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

CLJohnson

Pro

Keeping it short and simple, antimatter could potentially become a major renewable energy source. With continued development, antiatoms may become relatively easy to produce and store, with the intention of energy production through mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter. To abandon a find this significant could mean missing out on the key to preventing further global warming and issues linked with it, such as the excessive production of "greenhouse gases" due to fossil fuels being burned to produce electricity. With continued development and funding, antimatter may go on to replace most of our current non-renewable energy sources, which are depleting rapidly.
Cthrek

Con

No formalities.

I"ll go straight into my first argument; Research into antiatoms and antimatter will not solve the problems humanity is facing right now.

Like some nice commenters have stated, some references for your claims would be appreciated, since I think you might have some misconceptions concerning the topic. The first one being the inclusion of antiatoms in the motion, since doesn"t antimatter by very definition already include it? That aside the whole idea of energy production through annihilation doesn"t make sense. While it is true that energy is released it requires the same amount of energy (laws of conservation of energy) in the first place to form antimatter. However if all this could be forgiven the reality is that antimatter is not the fastest or most efficient way of producing energy. Furthermore the branch of research that involves antimatter is unlikely solve any other of the great problems humanity is facing at the moment such as disease and hunger. Even the cosmological value it holds is limited and for the sake of humanity we should prioritize other fields of science.

What I"m saying is that all science is not born equal. The words: could, might and possibly are words that are common to all of science, and rightfully so. Science is all about making new discoveries or deepening our understanding of old ones. In an ideal world we would have unlimited resources to peruse all branches of science. However in the real world it would sadden me to see the limited funding and brain power directed down wild goose chaises such as using antimatter for energy, all the while funding could be going into fusion reactors, which is more likely to result in solving the energy crisis the world is moving into.

While I acknowledge that basic scientific research is still important, right now we live in the age of applied sciences. Right now we have enough of the basics down. Now is the time we start using that knowledge to solve the problems we face together as humanity. Therefore it is vital for the time being to redirect funding towards fields that are more likely to solve problems. Hopefully as I have demonstrated antimatter research is not one of these fields.
Debate Round No. 1
CLJohnson

Pro

CLJohnson forfeited this round.
Cthrek

Con

So yeah....
I take it since you forfeit the last round I win the debate?
Yes, no, maybe?

Since I'm short on time, I'll just recap quickly.

Antimatter research as it is now, doesn't show any reliable future where it could solve the problems that we are faced with before they have been escalated beyond repair. Right now we need to focus on other science.

Sorry for keeping it so short and boring, but i really don't have time.
I'm fine with having new arguments in the third round.
Debate Round No. 2
CLJohnson

Pro

CLJohnson forfeited this round.
Cthrek

Con

Yeah I think he forgot about the debate or I'm just too damn good...
Anyways sad it didn't go further :(
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PointyDelta 1 year ago
PointyDelta
Could be, might, maybe...

We need evidence to continue to develop such a costly technology over possibly just as efficient technologies which might be much cheaper (nuclear). Hard, cold, evidence.
Posted by CLJohnson 1 year ago
CLJohnson
I never said that it is currently easy to produce and store. I said it could be in the future if they continue to develop it.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
Antimatter is far from easy to produce and store. Not sure where you got this from.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
CLJohnsonCthrekTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture