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

The SN 1006 Supernova caused World War Two

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: 4/27/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 751 times Debate No: 74322
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I am arguing FOR the resolution, that being that the SN 1006 Supernova caused World War Two.


SN 1006 supernova: The supernova that occurred in the constellation of Lupus and was recorded in the year 1006.

World War Two: The war occurring between 1939-45 between the US, UK, France, the Soviet Union, and Germany, Italy, Japan, as well as other minor powers.

Cause: Event A causes Event B if the existence/occurrence of Event A mandates the existence/occurrence of Event B.

I look forward to interesting debate.


I accept to this debate. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Here is my short and simple argument.

Premise One: A timeline is an ordered sequence of events.

Premise Two: Any event occurring on a timeline mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent event.

Premise Three: Any event occurring on a timeline mandates the occurrence of all subsequent events.

Premise Four: Any event occurring on a timeline is the cause of all subsequent events. (Premise Three, definition of cause)

Premise Five: The SN 1006 supernova occurred before World War Two.

Conclusion: The SN 1006 supernova caused World War Two. (Premise Four, Premise Five)


Premise One:

This is essentially how a timeline is defined. As far as structural models of the progression of time go, this is as best as we can come up with. Time is made up of events occurring, and so this is the best way to define it. In addition, the order of events is important, as time is directional (this is shown to be true be properties such as entropy).

Premise Two:

Also part of the definition of a timeline. Time cannot progress if events do not trigger subsequent events. The only way to argue against this is to posit Parmenidean Monism (the idea that all time is one and does not change). A quick rebuttal of PM is that while solipsistic barriers dictate that we can never know whether or not physical reality changes, what we can know is our own experience, which is always changing. Even if physical reality is static, our experiences do change.

Premise Three:

This follows naturally. If the first event occurs, it triggers the occurrence of the second event by definition. The second event thusly triggers the third, etc. as a domino effect sweeps through the timeline.

Premise Four:

We're just matching this up to our definition of cause now. We've already proved that the occurrence of any event mandates the occurrence of all subsequent events, so by definition it causes all subsequent events.

Premise Five:

This is historical fact. The supernova was observed in 1006 CE, but due to light travel delays, it most likely occurred much earlier in the past than that. WWII on the other hand, began in 1939, over 900 years after the observation of the supernova.


Follows from the premises.

With that I hand it over to Con.


CommunistDog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


CommunistDog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend again.


CommunistDog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by That1User 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.