The Instigator
ThePhysicist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

The Big Bang theory is true

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 4 votes the winner is...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 42083
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

ThePhysicist

Con

Pro will argue in favor of the resolution that the Universe's hypothesized "Big Bang theory" is in fact true.

Theory:

According to the Big Bang theory, matter and energy was compacted together. The universe was extremely dense. At one point, there was a cataclysmic explosion. The mass and energy filled up those spaces.

Contentions:

1. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

2. If statement #1 is true, then energy must be finite.

3. The Sun needs energy.

4. If statement #3 is true, and the mass and energy is filling up those spaces, how does the Sun have energy?

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...;
OtakuJordan

Pro

Pleased to "meet" you, Con. I look forward to a good discussion. Now, without further ado, I shall analyze my opponent's contentions.

Contention #1
This, of course, is not debatable.

Contention #2
C2 does not logically follow from C1 as my opponent claims. All that the principle of the conservation of energy proves is that the amount of energy in the universe has not changed since its inception. It does not say whether that energy was finite or infinite.

That being said, I do not contest your conclusion but your assertion that C2 flows from C1.

Contention #3
I am not sure as to what you mean by "The Sun needs energy." The sun is essentially a massive nuclear reactor that produces its own energy.[1]

Contention #4
Your arguments are greatly lacking in clarity, but I believe that what you are trying to argue is that if energy was distributed throughout the universe by the Big Bang then there should be no localized "masses" of it like the sun. As pointed out my response to C3, the sun is a mass with the correct "ingredients" to act as nuclear reactor, thus recycling one form of already existing energy into another.

If I have misunderstood your argument please correct me.

Sources
1. http://www.universetoday.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ThePhysicist

Con

ThePhysicist forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Pro

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 2
ThePhysicist

Con

ThePhysicist forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Pro

My arguments stand. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ThePhysicist 3 years ago
ThePhysicist
I am disproving a portion of the Big Bang theory (The Universe's metric expansion), which disproves the whole theory by definition.

The original argument is the argument Pro is specifically replying to.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
What is the original argument, and what do you exactly mean by the Sun "needs" energy?

I should also point out that none of this is the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory just describes how the universe came to be. It doesn't attempt to explain anything more than Hubble's law and the origin of the Universe.
Posted by ThePhysicist 3 years ago
ThePhysicist
Pro is supposed to rebut statements #2 - #3 subsequently, each concurring with the original argument. If he agrees, he must answer #4.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Well, that would be an easy enough point to refute.

I am still a bit confused on what exactly pro is to debate. Is pro trying to answer contention #4? There isn't really anything that you have stated that can be refuted, since you just stated physical laws. I mean, I could argue contention #2, technically #3, and answer #4 if that is what I should do, but this is a very unconventional debate.

So, could you clarify a bit more as to what pro is to do, since you can't argue contention #1 at all, and #4 asks a question.
Posted by ThePhysicist 3 years ago
ThePhysicist
I can add that the Sun was created during the creation of the Universe now.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Also, is pro supposed to answer contention #4? Is that what the debate is ACTUALLY about?
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Your contentions don't follow your theory. The big bang theory utilizes those contentions, but those contentions alone don't create the theory.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
ThePhysicistOtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a very poorly constructed unclear argument and so Pro wins for clarity and not forfeiting the argument.
Vote Placed by Guidestone 2 years ago
Guidestone
ThePhysicistOtakuJordanTied
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: Forfeited
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 2 years ago
AndrewB686
ThePhysicistOtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses because of forfeit and incoherent arguments that were easily exploited by pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
ThePhysicistOtakuJordanTied
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: FF