The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

The Earth can be destroyed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 74029
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




The Earth can not be destroyed with the current resources of humans. While global warming, nuclear threats and other things loom over, they would eradicate life, NOT the Earth.


The topic is the Earth can be destroyed. Not the Earth can be destroyed by human. So when the Sun become red giant. It will swallow the Earth. So the Earth can be destroyed by the Sun or other celestial bodies, not just human.
Debate Round No. 1


Technically round 1 is considered the extension/explanation of the resolution, so your argument may be considered invalid.
I just learnt in my geography class that the Earth's orbit changes every 40000 years or so, it may cause the Earth to increase distance from the red giant Sun.
I ask pro to act on round 1's explanation.


Ok, then how about the Aerolite, black hole and other stars. The universe is very dangerous, how can you sure that the Earth can't be destroyed! All the thing in the world will be destroyed in one day, how can you sure that the Earth won't be destroyed?

And, I've search the meaning of the word "destroyed" in the internet and dictionary.
The meaning is "unable to restore" or "to completely consume". The global warming, nuclear threats can also cause the Earth "unable to restore" or "to completely consume"
Debate Round No. 2


Global warming and nukes won't cause Earth to be completely consumed. And plus unable to restore depends on what you think as Earth's full health. Right now the earth can't grow plants on areas like roads, buildings by itself, so it is unable to restore?
Also, I said technically round 1 is the extension of the resolution, which deems your next argument invalid as well.


Ok, then I will fill my round 1 speech: I agree the topic because the celestial bodies in the universe may destroyed the Earth.

You cannot deny that there are lots of dangerous thing that can destroy Earth in the universe.

Because of the above reason, I agree the topic.

P.S. The title's coverage is too large, next time you should add more key words.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Albert_Fung 3 years ago
Actually that the title are 100% fact, it does not include any opinion.
Posted by Chaosism 3 years ago
@ Pro - you can't expect the title of the debate to utterly and solely determine the resolution. There is a character limit which would make complicated topics impossible. Con clearly expands on the resolution with his opening statements. If you ignore this, you will also ignore any rules and definitions that the instigator presents simply because they are not included in the topic of the debate.
Posted by Yassine 3 years ago
- I accept.
Posted by Biodome 3 years ago
Con's position seems very easy. Unless someone can prove that they possess a Death Star :D
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
I can accept on Monday.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Literally impossible resolution to deny. Con even conceded that nukes and global warming are both viable things that could destroy the Earth but not annihilate it. Pro successfully explained the exact definition of destruction and therefore won.