The Instigator
14yroldprodigy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PhilosophicalMan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Big Bang may have occured

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 373 times Debate No: 42922
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

14yroldprodigy

Pro

I will argue in favor of the resolution that the Big bang indeed, may have occured.

Rules

1) No trolling

2) Con may argue first, but must type "No arguments shall be made, as agreed upon" for R5

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture

Also, Con may define "Big Bang theory".



PhilosophicalMan

Con

Big bang theory - A theory in which the particles in the Universe were compressed into one tiny space then begins to expand.

Now for my arguments.

What gravity held together the matter?

It ignores the 1st law of thermodynamics:
Energy can neither be created nor can be destroyed
Debate Round No. 1
14yroldprodigy

Pro

I thank Con (PhilosophicalMan) for accepting this debate.

I also accept his definition of "Big Bang theory", therefore both our arguments must abide by the definition.

Rebuttals

"What gravity held together the matter?"

Due to it being extremely cold, it caused all this mass to fuse together, forming larger ones.

"It ignores the 1st law of thermodynamics:
Energy can neither be created nor can be destroyed"

First of all, this is an undefended premise.

So, indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed. However, hydrogen and helium can be converted into each other, and other elements. Hydrogen can fuse and ignite. When it ignites, at one point, it turns into helium.

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org...
PhilosophicalMan

Con

newton's 2nd law of physics is false because an airplane is faster than a car, yet it contains more mass

if matter fills up those spaces, wouldn't the inner space have no mass and energy whatsoever
Debate Round No. 2
14yroldprodigy

Pro

Rebuttals

"newton's 2nd law of physics is false because an airplane is faster than a car, yet it contains more mass"

According to Newton's 2nd law of motion[1], the net force has to be proportionate to, and in the same direction as, the object it is acted upon.

In other words, the net force a car is acted upon is weaker than the net force an airplane is acted upon.

"if matter fills up those spaces, wouldn't the inner space have no mass and energy whatsoever"

Mass is not filling up those spaces. Gases are not dense. In other words, matter is not compact, in which it has space to freely move anywhere, in which it does. Same goes for our Universe.

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion


PhilosophicalMan

Con

PhilosophicalMan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14yroldprodigy

Pro

14yroldprodigy forfeited this round.
PhilosophicalMan

Con

PhilosophicalMan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14yroldprodigy

Pro

14yroldprodigy forfeited this round.
PhilosophicalMan

Con

PhilosophicalMan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Soundsamplifyinmyhouse 3 years ago
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse
according to Newton's 2nd law of motion, the*
Posted by Soundsamplifyinmyhouse 3 years ago
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse
"newton's 2nd law of physics is false because an airplane is faster than a car, yet it contains more mass"

Like you said, the net force has to be proportionate to, and in the same direction as, the object acted upon. The net force a car is acted upon is a lot weaker than the net force an airplane is acted upon.
Posted by BruceWayneBM 3 years ago
BruceWayneBM
You use the same spelling to draw out your arguments (although they are weak), you fail horribly at trying to fit in as an intellectual, all of your usernames show pretension, your accounts have the same age, and they are only a few days old.
Posted by 14yroldprodigy 3 years ago
14yroldprodigy
@SocialismBeatsGreed

Either one, I am specifically arguing in favor of the resolution that the Big Bang may have OCCURRED. The Big Bang theory (The TV show starring Jim Parsons, Kaley Cuoco, and the guy who guest starred in "Rosanne") has been filmed before, thus proving me.
Posted by SocialismBeatsGreed 3 years ago
SocialismBeatsGreed
If I was Con, I would have totally defined the Big Bang Theory as a TV show starring Jim Parsons, Kaley Cuoco, and that guy who guest starred in "Rosanne". My primary argument? The phrase "may have" demonstrates doubt where there is none, as there is solid, hard evidence that the Big Bang Theory is indeed occurring and currently being filmed.
Posted by 14yroldprodigy 3 years ago
14yroldprodigy
@BruceWayneBM

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Posted by BruceWayneBM 3 years ago
BruceWayneBM
Why do you argue with yourself and pretend to be some intellectual philosopher?
No votes have been placed for this debate.