The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
00
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,232 times Debate No: 27910
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

This debate has a rigid pair of rules, failure to abide by either and/or both and one forfeits 7 points to opponent.

The Rules:
  1. Never use evidence other than from Darwin's theory of evolution or any LOGICAL hypothetical past state of animals or living beings in general. In other words, no one should deserve the sources vote because this should be purely original work.
  2. Never, ever contradict yourself. If any one of us is proven to have self contradicted even once (even using a quote from round one and from round 4) that person loses immediately no questions asked UNLESS they can prove it is not a self contradiction in which case the prosecutor forfeits the match, in other words I really want us to not have any self contradiction at all because this debate is often turned ugly by it.

Thanks.

Round one is not for acceptance it's for con's case. <--- failure to abide = 7 points forfeit.

My case for the egg is this one, simple fundamental line of logic that, to me, is flawless.

The 'egg' could be the egg we know mammals to have, fish to have, birds to have or even an imaginary type of egg.

I shall now define egg, FOR THE CONTEXT OF THIS DEBATE. This definition is non-negotiable and if you do so I will remind you only once that you accepted this debate on the premise that this definition ring true, if you fail to adhere after a warning, you forfeit 7 points.

Egg: Any biological structure from which a fetus forms, and perhaps develops, or merely is involved with the production of the living vessel.

My definition of chicken (not in the meat context) is negotiable, unlike the definition of egg. However in negotiation (which must end prior to round 4) I would appreciate good reasoning and justification for it.

Chicken: The first creature existing to genetically resemble the modern day hen, all which descend from it or its relatives.

My argument is simply this: There could exist no chicken without an egg but, far more easily, could the egg of a different bird have mutated to create the chicken in fetal form (or its father having been the mutated bird). I cannot see any way, unless evolving straight out of thin air in a similar way to single-celled bacterium, that there cold have existed a Chicken before the egg containing one.
00

Con

1. The BOP lies on Pro.
2. Con concedes that the Chicken did not come before the Egg.
3. Every Chicken is an Egg:
A. An Egg is "any biological structure from which a fetus forms, and perhaps develops, or merely is involved with the production of the living vessel."
B. Creatures "genetically resembl[ing] the modern day hen" are "biological structure[s] from which fetus[es] form[,] and perhaps develop[,] or merely [are] involved with the production of [...] living vessel[s]."
C. A Chicken is a creature "genetically resembl[ing] the modern day hen."
D. Therefore a Chicken is an Egg.
4. Pro cannot redefine Egg or Chicken without contradicting himself and effectively forfeiting the debate.

"There could exist no chicken without an egg but, far more easily, could the egg of a different bird have mutated to create the chicken in fetal form (or its father having been the mutated bird)."

Agreed. A priori, it is possible for the egg, a mutating "biological structure," to be a chicken, such that the first chicken and egg come into existence at the same time. Thus Pro's BOP is not fulfilled.

"I cannot see any way, unless evolving straight out of thin air in a similar way to single-celled bacterium, that there cold [sic] have existed a Chicken before the egg containing one."

Agreed. Naturally, since every Chicken contains itself, every Chicken is contained inside an egg.

To conclude, Pro has not disputed that the Egg and the Chicken could come into existence at the same time instead of one existing before the other.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

A chicken is a being the resembles the modern day hen. The egg of a hen is formed BEFORE the fetus begins to form. The chicken is not an egg because it is a fetus at its origin. Over to con.
00

Con

"A chicken is a being the resembles the modern day hen. The egg of a hen is formed BEFORE the fetus begins to form. The chicken is not an egg because it is a fetus at its origin. Over to con."

Agreed. However, the above statement presupposes the existence of a hen (before the egg is formed): "The egg of a hen." This presupposed Chicken must exist before it can have the egg that is considered in Pro's scenario.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

Okay by hen's egg is was referring to an egg from which a chicken comes. An egg is not a fetus at all, it always needs fertilization by a sexy SPERM! (the hen species is not hermaphrodite). Thus you can not possibly say a chicken is an egg because it is, at its very conception ALREADY only HALF the genetic data of an egg. Please drop this silly argument and actually explain how on Earth chicken came before egg?
00

Con

"Okay by hen's egg is [sic] was referring to an egg from which a chicken comes. An egg is not a fetus at all, it always needs fertilization by a sexy SPERM! (the hen species is not hermaphrodite). [...] A chicken is [...] at its very conception ALREADY only HALF the genetic data of" a zygote.

Presupposing that egg and sperm are different, the combination of egg DNA and sperm DNA must be similar to that of the modern chicken. By the laws of probability, it is more likely that there are important mutations in both the egg and the sperm (or just in the sperm) than in the egg alone. If there are mutations in both, then it follows that the DNA of the egg is different from the DNA of a modern chicken egg; thus, the egg is not a chicken egg and the sperm is not chicken sperm, however, the combination of the two forms a chicken.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

Yes I agree but how can a chicken not come from an egg?
00

Con

"Yes I agree but how can a chicken not come from an egg?"

Pro has agreed that the following to be semantic abuse: "dinosaurs had eggs. they came before chickens." It follows that Pro considers the resolution to refer to chicken eggs and not to the eggs of other animals. Whether or not a chicken comes from an egg is irrelevant; a more relevant question would be whether or not a chicken comes from a chicken egg. The answer to this question is contained in my speech from the previous round: "the DNA of the egg is different from the DNA of a modern chicken egg; thus, the egg is not a chicken egg and the sperm is not chicken sperm, however, the combination of the two forms a chicken." Thus the (chicken) egg did not come before the chicken.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

I meant that saying dinosaur's had 'egg' doesn't prov emy theory right. Instead, An egg of a creature that directly produced the first chicken is proof of my theory. The fact that the chicken came from an egg shows my theory to be true.
00

Con

"I meant that saying dinosaur's had 'egg' doesn't prov [sic] emy [sic] theory right. Instead, An egg of a creature that directly produced the first chicken is proof of my theory. The fact that the chicken came from an egg shows my theory to be true."

If a chicken came from a dinosaur egg, it could be concluded that the dinosaur egg came before the chicken. However, if the chicken did not come from a dinosaur egg, it could still be concluded that the dinosaur egg came before the chicken. Thus, both statements result in the same conclusion being reaching regarding chickens and eggs. For Pro to reject the second statement (that a dinosaur had an egg before the first chicken existed) as proof of the resolution, Pro must disagree that the conclusion of the second statement satisfies the resolution. It follows that since the conclusion of the second statement does not satisfy the resolution, the first statement and its conclusion also do not satisfy the resolution. Thus, it is possible that a chicken came from a dinosaur egg - in this case, the resolution is negated and Con wins the debate. Logically, there is nothing intrinsically special about dinosaurs that prevents Pro's argument from being extended to other animals. Extending Pro's argument to the animal whose egg (that I have shown to not be a chicken egg) created the chicken, it follows that the resolution is negated.

Even if Pro's argument cannot be extended to all animals except chickens, it is still very possible that the first chicken came from a dinosaur egg, especially since chickens and dinosaurs are genetically similar.

To conclude, Pro has not met BOP. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 00 3 years ago
00
@RationalMadman
How did I contradict myself? Why did you not make this argument during the debate when I could actually respond to it instead of now?

@wrichcirw
2. Pro agreed that the existence of dinosaur eggs before chickens does not prove the resolution, thus, the eggs must not be from dinosaurs. Furthermore, this was in response to a question from lucasl1990. Since there is nothing intrinsically special about dinosaurs compared to all other animals in existence, it follows that the egg must not be from any animal (besides a chicken). How is this a strawman?
3. Have you read Darwin's theory of evolution or taken a biology class? Basic knowledge of biology is required to understand my argument (see a Punnett square) that the combination of a mutant egg genetically different from a chicken egg and a mutant sperm genetically different from chicken sperm produced the first chicken. Also, do you know what the word "sic" means?
4. Con asserted that "it is still very possible that the first chicken came from a dinosaur egg" PRESUPPOSING that the egg and sperm were different. Con never actually dropped the argument that a chicken was an egg, by Pro's definitions. How is this a concession?
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
I am sorry, I didn't know what sic meant.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Good debate.

1) VERY clever observation by CON, to such an extent I will award 2 source points solely on his assertion that "a Chicken is an Egg." Totally valid conclusion given PRO's stipulations, and almost had me convinced that he won the debate. Excellent use of PRO's stipulations.
2) To PRO's question "how can a chicken not come from an egg?", CON pulls out a strawman that the resolution actually implies that an "egg" actually refers to a "chicken egg" when PRO did not make this stipulation in round #1.
3) CON's round #3 was almost totally incomprehensible. 2nd statement, 1st statement, wtf statement. I had no idea to what he was referring. S&G to PRO.
4) That CON stuck to the assertion that "the first chicken came from a dinosaur egg", he concedes the debate to PRO.

Extremely lucid use of logic by CON, but unfortunately CON was not able to overcome PRO's simple question. Had CON just simply stuck to the assertion that an EGG IS A CHICKEN AND A CHICKEN IS AN EGG, I would have awarded BoP to him too...again, excellent use of logic in the "chicken is egg" assertion. Unfortunately he let go of this incredibly potent argument, even though it logically flowed from PRO's stipulations.
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
RationalMadman
You are the one who contradicted yourself not me.
Posted by wuywieuiuoshdf 3 years ago
wuywieuiuoshdf
Hi buddy :

HOT SELL Product Brand is below: ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====
,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike s h o x shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction
jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach
handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag .
free shipping
New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
New era cap $9
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of Style! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.scnshop.com... ) =====
Posted by 00 3 years ago
00
@RationalMadman
Not sure how you missed this...
A. An Egg is "any biological structure from which a fetus forms, and perhaps develops, or merely is involved with the production of the living vessel."
B. Creatures "genetically resembl[ing] the modern day hen" are "biological structure[s] from which fetus[es] form[,] and perhaps develop[,] or merely [are] involved with the production of [...] living vessel[s]."
C. A Chicken is a creature "genetically resembl[ing] the modern day hen."
D. Therefore a Chicken is an Egg.
Pro cannot redefine Egg or Chicken without contradicting himself and effectively forfeiting the debate.
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
RationalMadman
YEs you did.
Posted by 00 3 years ago
00
@The_Master_Riddler
Your RFD is nonsensical. Con did not just say a chicken was an egg - Con proved this using Pro's definitions (the only source allowed in this debate), so really, it is Pro's definitions that you should consider false. Also, why did you give spelling and grammar to Pro? Do you know what the word "sic" means?
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
RationalMadman
I NEVER SAID DINOSAUR EGG U IDIOT Grrrrrrrrr
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
RationalMadman00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: According to what I read, Pro met the BoP. Also, con said that a chicken is an egg (not true).
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
RationalMadman00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment