The Instigator
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
TheAmazingAtheist1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Big Bang may have occurred

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...
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 346 times Debate No: 43012
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

Rules


1. Con will argue in favor of the resolution that the Big Bang indeed, did not occur.

2. No trolling.

3. Do not plagiarize.

4. 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.

Definitions

Occurred - past tense of occur

Occur - happen; to take place

Big Bang theory - theory in which mass fused together and then afterwards came a cataclysmic explosion.

TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

I graciously accept my opponent's challenge. I shall accept his rules, and my arguments must abide by his definition.

Explosion

In an explosion, things usually go out of order. However, after the Big Bang, everything seemed to be in such complex order. How?



Gravity



What held the mass together? While the multiverse is infinite in size, endless, what held the mass together?



I await my opponent's set of arguments.


Debate Round No. 1
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

Alright. I thank Con for accepting this debate. Like he said, his arguments must abide by the definition.

Rebuttals

Explosion

"In an explosion, things usually go out of order. However, after the Big Bang, everything seemed to be in such complex order. How?"

When the Big Bang occurred, stars, etc. were created (The Sun). The Earth was compelled to orbit the Sun because of the Sun, etc. etc.

Gravity

"What held the mass together? While the multiverse is infinite in size, endless, what held the mass together?"

The Multiverse is extremely cold. Due to that, mass fused together.
TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

I concede that my previous arguments are null.

New Presentations

It ignores the first law of thermodynamics:

"Mass can neither be created nor destroyed"
Debate Round No. 2
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

Rebuttals


"


It ignores the first law of thermodynamics:


"Mass can neither be created nor destroyed""

This remains as an undefended premise.

Also, it does not. They are convertable.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

it violates conservation of angularf
Debate Round No. 3
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

Rebuttals

"it violates conservation of angularf"

According to the laws of science (Conservation of angular momentum[1], in particular), when a piece comes off a spinning object, it must spin in the same direction.

However, Earth, etc. came into existence.

Source

TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

TheAmazingAtheist1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

TheAmazingAtheist1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
SoundsamplifyinmyhouseTheAmazingAtheist1Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: There was only one source used in the entire debate, and the points for that go to Pro. Conduct goes to Pro as Con forfeited 2 rounds, and typed only one sentence in rd 3. That brings me to S&G. I noticed a major spelling mistake by Con in rd 3, although that was probably not by his own lack of knowledge. Arguments go to Pro as well, since Con's defense was hardly adequate. His singular statement in rd 3 as well as 2 forfeits were also factors. Also, Con conceded his rd 1 arguments in rd 2, which wasn't pretty at all. All in all, it's definitely a 7-point win for Pro, but it's largely because Con self-destructed.