The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
atjacobmajor
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The earth is expanding

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 2 votes the winner is...
atjacobmajor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 104145
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

I contend that the earth is expanding. This is the main reason that large dinosaurs disappeared. That meteor impacts are not the main reason for dinosaur extinction.
atjacobmajor

Con

Hey, Pro! I accept this debate, and am curious to what you mean by "the Earth is expanding," could you please explain what, how and why?
Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

I will just leave you with a video which demonstrates the theory.

https://www.youtube.com...
atjacobmajor

Con

Wow! What an interesting video! I am now convinced!

All jokes aside there are two major problems I see with the logic presented in this video:

1. How did life start in the oceans, if there where no oceans?

It is very clear that life started in the ocean, not only because it was an easy way for molecules and compounds to bump into each other and provide water to very basic, single cellular life forms. We also have evidence, that the oldest life forms were in the water, so if there were no oceans, explain to me how is this possible?

2. Where does all the mass come from?

The idea of something expanding, without having a source for all that additional matter is absolutely preposterous. This theory, or least how it is presented in the video, simply ignores the fact that all this additional matter for earth to grow doesn't just simply appear, but has to come from somewhere. One of the most important figureheads of this "theory" (albeit more of an idea), James Magslow, simply said "I don't know" when he discussed the question at one of his presentations.

If we are going to bring up videos as arguing points, might I suggest this fantastic work of art:

https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

1. Just because there were no deep oceans doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of shallow oceans. Note - All the ancient sea life fossils have been found on land. What is now land was once shallow oceans. The early Earth most likely didn't have any dry land and was just a huge shallow sea. Life would emerge more easily from small rock pools. One must understand the nature of light. Light is spin torque energy from the sun. This spin torque energy travels through the aether and winds up some selected molecules to give them animation that we call life. Note - DNA is a double helix which has the same form and shape as light energy. Thus, all living things are like little wind-up toys which are powered by the suns spin torque energy. Forget about photons, this is not how the universe works.

2. The aether is made of positive and negative particles which spin at the speed of light. Positive and negative is really left and right spin energy. When these particles approach a large celestial body they are pushed together and stop spinning which releases the spin torque energy.(E=MC2) Thus, two particles of aether (C2) are pushed together to produce (M) mass or neutrons which releases (E) energy. Thus, this is how matter is created outside the atmosphere of suns and in the interior of planets. Planets will eventually grow into suns given sufficient time. Suns will grow into black holes given sufficient time. A solar system is a small galaxy in the making. A planet and its moons are a small solar system in the making. Thus, everything is expanding and contracting at the same time in an endless cycle. Note - Black holes return matter back to aether again. This is contraction.

Note - The sun passes through a layer of dust every 26 millions years which lies in the galactic centre plane which is similar to the rings of Saturn. At this point the Earth may experience some extinction events happening due to meteor impacts. This would accelerate the mass accretion process.
atjacobmajor

Con

1a. A good reason for not finding plenty of deep sea fossils is because THE OCEAN IS HARD TO EXPLORE. In fact, we have explored less than 5 percent of the ocean! (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov...) Another reason why we don't find many under is SEAFLOOR SPREADING. Think of this as an incinerator conveyor belt, pushing off garbage (fossils) into the fire (the mantle.) As new garbage is put onto the belt (fossils are formed) it is in a constant movement outward to the fire (the mantle.) Also, water is much more effective at wearing down fossils than things like air. These three reasons easily explain why more fossils are found on land.

1b. "Light is spin torque energy from the sun." Um, no it's not? Light is a type of electromagnetic wave. The sun produces light, but sun(s) are not the only source of light. If your statement were true, how would the light from your computer screens, lamps, phone flashlights, etc. work? If you want know how light really works, do a simple Google search, or just click to one of the three provided links: (http://www.andor.com...) (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) (http://www.explainthatstuff.com...) If any of this is too complicated, I found another source that may be more understandable: (http://www.sciencekids.co.nz...)

1c. "Thus, all living things are like little wind-up toys which are powered by the suns spin torque energy." What? No, living things are powered by energy, which on earth, commonly comes in the form of things glucose. Not... torque? The idea of torque as a type of energy for living creatures is ridiculous, especially if we already know how they work. I mean, I guess it may theoretically be possible for a creature to harness any type of energy, but no known creatures harness this type of energy, so the idea of this being the only way for creatures to receive energy is ridiculous. If you refer to light as this energy, then that is also not true. It is true that a majority of creature do, by extension receive most of their energy from the Sun, whether it be directly, by eating that organism, by eating that organism that ate the other organism, and/or on and on and on. However, this idea is already proven false by the existence of chemotropism, which are organisms that collect energy by the oxidation of electron donors. You can read on them here: (http://www.fossilmuseum.net...)

1d. "Forget about photons, this is not how the universe works." Um? You cannot just rewrite so much of science so easily. If you can point me to several credible sources that even come close enough to suggest the existence, or rather non-existence, of such a theory, please show me. I can guarantee you, if they were not already, they can easily be debunked.

2. What you just described is the process of Nuclear fission. Nuclear fission creates energy, however energy =/= mass. (=/= means doesn't equal.) The idea that our planet is a sun, just with a crust layer is ridiculous, it is extremely unstable. We could make an iron globe and drop nuclear bombs in it and call it a planet, by your definition, but when I put it like that it, somehow, sounds even less feasible. If you are suggesting that the energy created by this creates matter, well it can, but it returns to the exact same amount that was used to cause the process. This way, the planet would not grow. It is impossible to grow without an exterior source of mass, such as a meteor, but that would severely damage the planet.

Thank you for reading! On to Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
Akhenaten

Pro

1.(a) A pathetic excuse for not finding any sea life fossils in the ocean. If they can find oil 3.5 kms under the ocean, then, I am confident they could find at least one or two ancient sea life fossils. But, no! They can't find any! This is because the Earth is expanding from fault lines which are mostly located in the middle of the major oceans and expand outwards from there. The stress lines can be seen which extend from the fault line ridges to the coast in an almost straight lines. The age of the rocks have been tested and they can't find any deep ocean rock older than about 70 million years. The closer you get to the centre of the ocean, the younger the rocks are. This definitely proves that the Earth is expanding.

The expanding Earth is also the reason that there aren't any large dinosaurs around any more. The Earth's gravity has increased with its size and has made life difficult for large animals to survive. Thus, the increase in gravity slowed down the body movements of the large dinosaurs until they could no longer compete with smaller and more agile animals. Even the mega fauna have disappeared just recently because of this ongoing increase. Every animal that existed during the dinosaur era has a smaller equivalent animal living today. Note - Humans have replaced T-Rex as the dominant biped.

1. (b) Sorry that you have been misinformed by the education system. The education system is faulty and they only won't you to know what they think you should know. Old preconceived ideas about the universe are very hard to kill off. Thus, gravity doesn't pull, it pushes. The idea that gravity pulls is a horse and buggy era concept. No! The horse pushes the buggy via the strap across its chest. The concept of pulling is illogical. To pull something you need a rope and an anchor attachment. Now, I can't see any rope which is going from the Earth to to moon. Therefore, the aether must be pushing the moon and Earth around the sun. Thus, there is an aether which light travels through.

https://www.youtube.com...

1. (c) Glucose is ultimately just a spin battery. The spin energy from the sun is stored in various forms or packages called sugars and carbohydrates. The spin energy is released when consumed by the digestive system which powers the organism. The universe is purely mechanical at its microscopic and sub-atomic level. Thus, life and free will are just illusions of random motion.

1. (d) Tesla is the answer! Don't listen to Einstein's brain farts!
https://www.youtube.com...

2. That's right! The Earth is unstable! That's why we have earth quakes all the time. There is a nuclear reactor in the centre of the Earth which is creating a lot of molten lava which breaks out to the surface every now and then. That's why you get tsunami's occurring around the equator when the Earth collapses due to spin torque energy release as the earth gradually becomes rounder and less potato shaped.
atjacobmajor

Con

1a." A pathetic excuse for not finding any sea life fossils in the ocean. If they can find oil 3.5 kms under the ocean, then, I am confident they could find at least one or two ancient sea life fossils." This is a really silly argument against not finding fossils because in order to make such a comparison, you must not understand how seismic surveying works. Here is a quick overview: A ship tows a compressed air gun that shoots sound waves that penetrate deep into the rock and carry an array of sensors behind them that time how long it takes for the sound waves to return. This creates relatively detailed maps showing where things like oil, water, and different kinds of rock are. However, these maps are still too rough to find individual small fossils, which in general are also buried quite deep underground. Also, this is not performed in the ocean, but on the geological continent. The continents are not just what is above water, because there is actually a huge portion of the continent below sea level, look at this map: (https://upload.wikimedia.org...) So it is easier to find out oil sections in relatively shallow waters. Since you seem to like providing videos as your evidence, I will do the same. Here is a great video explaining how off-shore seismic surveying works: (https://www.youtube.com...) As I said before, we currently lack a massive amount of technology needed to explore the undersea floor.

You also state that dinosaurs went extinct, partially because they could no longer resist the pull (or rather push, but we will get into that later...) of the ever increasing Earth. However, if this was the case, how come other smaller dinosaurs, such as raptors, also went extinct? The meteor gave mammals a chance, because mammals were generally smaller than reptiles. This allowed mammals to evolve, and use traits such as their superior intelligence to gain superiority. The main reasons why humans overtook the T-Rex is because they did not exist in the same time period, and that humans have far superior intelligence and senses, allowing them to, over time, easily conquer anything, besides our rather weak body with inventions and built up knowledge. You say that every animal from that era has a smaller living equivalent today, and this is because, once again, they were smaller! One question you may ask is, why is being smaller a benefit, if there is no expanding Earth? Because the meteor covered up the Sun, which made it harder to hunt, but also made these small mammals less available, because they died off. However, a smaller amount was still able to sustain themselves of plants, and the carnivores needed less because they themselves were smaller.

1b. Here you say that gravity must be pushing, rather than pulling which I find absolutely ridiculous. If there is a force pushing some things toward a certain object, would that object be pulling? You also say that you need some sort of rope to connect some things which is garbage. You can connect things like magnets, or water to itself (via hydrogen bonding.) This is an extremely poor analogy. You cite ANOTHER YouTube video, by some wanna be physicist with only 2,000 views. I'm not totally dismissing his ideas, because I don't have the level of mathematical understanding to comprehend and debate such an idea, however, I can say that we already have proven gravity because it is not scientific THEORY it is scientific LAW. I don't think your video is a very credible source. It is not tested and tried. No other scientists have even acknowledged the idea... please provide some more reputable sources...

1c. I still cannot comprehend the ridiculous idea of a "spin battery." Glucose is not a "spin battery," glucose is a simple sugar compound. It is not a "spin battery." If you want to even ENTERTAIN the idea of such a ridiculous idea, at least show me SOME sort of source! There isn't even a ridiculous YouTube video attached to this!

1d. So here you simply link to a video.. about PHOTOGRAPHY. This is to the point where it is humorous. I understand photons are not tried and tested, but there is evidence of something that would at least have similar traits, so the idea that photons do not exist could be argued... with lots of credible sources and a complex physics background. Neither of which you have.

2. Oh my God, I do not know what to say! NUCLEAR REACTIONS DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, CREATE... LAVA! I don' even know how you came up with this one! And we have earthquakes because of plates colliding!
Debate Round No. 4
Akhenaten

Pro

1. The fact that they can only find oil on land or continental shelf areas means that prehistoric life never existed in the deep ocean regions. This is because deep ocean areas are less than 70 million years old. This is proof that the Earth has expanded over time. Geological surveys have proved that the rocks which are closest to the fault line ridge in the middle of the ocean are the youngest rocks. This is also proof that the Earth is expanding. My opponent hasn't offered any counter argument to these undeniable facts. The ridge stress lines that extend from the central ocean ridges to the coast clearly confirms the direction of this expansion. The video clearly shows that there has been no subduction on the coastal regions. The mountain regions can be explained by the folding of the crust due to expansion. Note - This action is best represented in the analogy of a tree trunk. If you cut a small slit in the bark of a small tree and leave it for about 20 years you will notice that the edges of the slit mark will buckle upwards as the tree grows. This is exactly what has happened to the edge and central areas of some continents. We can clearly see this buckling up effect in a large continent like Russia. The Ural mountain range is a good example. Now, how can a mountain range form in the centre of Russia using my opponents poor excuse of subduction?

2. Why did the small raptors become extinct?
Answer - They didn't become extinct. They evolved into birds. Note - 99 % of all species have either evolved or become extinct since the beginning of life on Earth.

3. Gravity is pushing.
Nature can only push, it can't pull. Pulling requires intelligence and leverage. Still, pulling is just an illusion because its the aetheric pressure that is pushing things together. Magnets and water are pushed by aetheric wind which is generated by the qualities of the matter concerned. A magnet is just a smaller fractal of a planet, sun or galaxy which all have a positive and negative aether flow direction which is perpendicular to the rotating axis.

4. Spin battery.
The only way the universe can store energy for billions of years and then suddenly release that energy is through frictionless spin energy. The logic of inevitable consequences dictates this must be so. It is difficult to prove this because this is a sub-atomic phenomenon. The equation E=MC2 verifies my assumptions.

5. Nuclear fusion causes magma formation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Note - Saturn gives off twice the heat that it receives from the sun. This is because Saturn is a larger planet which is becoming a sun itself. What is right for one planet must also apply to all other planets. Thus, the magma that is in the centre of the Earth must be produced by nuclear fusion and is not remnant heat form its early formation period.

http://classroom.synonym.com...
atjacobmajor

Con

Before I start my final rebuttal and conclusion, I would just like to note how much I enjoyed this debate, and would be willing to do another in the future, if you would os please :)

1. Perhaps you did not understand the concept of seafloor spreading, which I explained in argument 3. If you still don't understand the concept, here is a link to the Wikipedia page which excellently explains the issue: (https://en.wikipedia.org...) You said that the video debunks subduction, but it absolutely does not, in fact it only mentions sea floor spreading as a lie, but doesn't confront WHY it is a lie at all, and just goes on to explain the same bogus theory as before. You also mention the Ural mountains as proof of "folding crust during expansion," however whenever something is expanded, it doesn't crease together, it UNBUCKLES! Think of a loose, shaped rubber band. When it is loose, it displays it's shape, however when it is stretched out the creases become circular. If the Earth is expanding, then there would be no be squeezed up, just the opposite, it frees up space. According to your idea of how these mountains formed, this would be going against common sense. Also, the Ural Mountains were NOT formed by subduction, but rather a long time ago by collision with another continent squeezing it tight.

2. Although more closely related to raptors than some other types of dinosaurs, raptors split off from birds (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) and became different creatures. Raptors were tyrannosauroids and split off from birds' evolutionary path about halfway through, therefore they went extinct.

3. "Nature can only push, it can't pull. Pulling requires intelligence and leverage. Still, pulling is just an illusion because its the aetheric pressure that is pushing things together. Magnets and water are pushed by aetheric wind which is generated by the qualities of the matter concerned. A magnet is just a smaller fractal of a planet, sun or galaxy which all have a positive and negative aether flow direction which is perpendicular to the rotating axis." I would argue the opposite, that pull requires no intelligence because things are attracted to it, but push does because this pushing would required to perfectly orbit. Also, this 'Pushing, not pulling' theory has not onc been back up by any credited evidence you have given, therefore, it is extremely unsound.

4. "The only way the universe can store energy for billions of years and then suddenly release that energy is through frictionless spin energy. The logic of inevitable consequences dictates this must be so. It is difficult to prove this because this is a sub-atomic phenomenon. The equation E=MC2 verifies my assumptions." I still have no idea what this 'spin battery' you are talking about is. Despite all my searching, I have not found ANYTHING on such a topic, nor have you provided anything. However, upon some research on your profile, I concluded that this spin theory is... of your invention. (http://www.debate.org...) I know this because you call it 'my' theory and have no sources to back up the theory, because there are none. Because you have no... known of science background, and testing has been done to this theory, I don't think it is valid to use in an argument, unless that argument is about the existence of it itself. Of course there is spin in quantum mechanics, but this has NOTHING to do with glucose and energy.

5. The source you cited is quite interesting and does make a decent case for having some sort of nuclear reactor in the middle of the Earth... however, it NOWHERE states that it CREATES magma. The article is about how the heat is generated and nowhere mentions anything about the ridiculous theory that you can create mass out of nowhere, or extract it from somewhere else without any sort of black hole or wormhole.

6. Saturn is not 'becoming a sun', simply because it gives off that heat. Once again, your source, although credible, does not support your argument. At all. The source simply STATES that it gives off that much energy. The idea that something can turn into a sun naturally is preposterous, because of the studies we already did on suns. We know a lot about suns and how they transform, and NOT ONCE have we seen something like this.

CONCLUSION:

Although my opponent proposed several interesting theories, his sources were often not related, not credible, or often even both. Even the video that was a lousy excuse for burden of concept is from a COMIC BOOK ARTIST! I'm not joking, look at his channel! (https://www.youtube.com...) Also, my opponent appears to have several of his own theories, which is ridiculous because my opponent does not seem to have any reasonable background in physics, nor has he done, or at least stated, any of his testing. However, the biggest hole in his theory is that there is no place where this extra matter is coming from! As we know, you CAN create matter from energy, but you need matter to create energy! All in all, I really enjoyed this debate and would love to do another if my opponent so wishes ;)
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
@Akhenaten
No matter how much you try, our votes will not be permanently removed. Why can you not simply accept that you lost? It is funny how you, a crybaby, was looking down on me calling me a little boy.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JimShady// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Con before and after the debate, as no substantive evidence was given by Pro. Con wins the conduct point, because Pro is very rude in comments. Spelling and grammar is tied, and Con gets sources points because they were very reliable and supported his topic, such as how light works, while Pro mainly offered videos from comic book artists and sources that did not support his argument. Convincing Arguments go to Con, as the burden of proof was on Pro (made claims) and was not fulfilled. Pro tried to assert that we have not found fossils beneath the ocean, that magma is created by nuclear fission, and that glucose uses "spin energy". All of this was easily debunked by Con, who pointed out he had no sources, science background, or anything to back them up. He also stated we can't look for fossils beneath the ocean because of technical problems. Con wins this debate pretty easily in my opinion with the argument that Pro has given no explanation for the increase in Earth matter

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The only way this point may be awarded is if someone is outright insulting within the debate, forfeits a round, or violates the rules. The voter has to specify which of those is occurring, and may not award points for any perceived conduct violations outside of the debate (including in the comments). (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to compare sources given by both sides in order to ward these points, yet he only states that one side lacked sources without analyzing any of the sources given.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KostasT.1526// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: 3,4. I did not notice anything remarkable regarding the two. Both Pro's and Con's behaviour were a little ironic at some points, but not offensive at all. 5. Con's arguments were valid and supported by sources (as seen in the conversation on oceans and the nature of light, for example), while Pro countered with false claims without providing any trustworthy confirming sources, take the their assumption that the ether exists or the misused E=MC^2 (yes, C^2 and not C*2, as Pro implied by "two particles of aether (C2)" - with C being the ether particle) for example. Furthermore, Pro failed to explain the greatest problem of their initial claim, namely the mysteriously appearing matter, while the debate ended with Con facing no arguments against them. Moreover, Pro's whole first argument was only a link to a youtube video, which I find insufficient for such a debate. 6. While Pro's sources were mainly few youtube videos of unknown validity, Con cited numerous authoritative webpages.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter requested removal. In the future, if you wish to edit a vote, you can simply re-post it.

Note: I just noticed that the voter said he updated this in the comments. If that happens, you might want to send Airmax or me a PM to let us know that you're retracting your report.
************************************************************************
Posted by JimShady 3 months ago
JimShady
So now you are going to be a lil' crybaby and report votes you disagree with? That's OK, I'll be voting again.
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
Well, I updated it, so there is no problem
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
Sorry, I accidentally posted my vote without finishing it. I myself reported it and it will be removed.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Arganger// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con said, "Wow! What an interesting video! I am now convinced!" shown sarcastically by, " All jokes aside". This shows a total lack of respect for pro's ideas. Con used sources from scientific sites with many credentials, but pro relied on YouTube videos. This YouTube reliance also loses pro the more convincing arguments, as his first argument was only posting a video.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to either specifically assess points made by both debaters, or assess the burden of proof along with the arguments of the side that carries it. The voter solely assesses sources in a general sense, but never talks about either side"s arguments beyond the support they receive. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide some assessment of the specific sources. Making generalizations about sources being scientific, and stating that Youtube videos are inherently problematic, is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KostasT.1526// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Hello I believe it is apparent that the debate goes to Con, but I will elaborate on my reasons for this vote. 1,2. I agreed with Con both in the beginning and after the end of the debate, as one is able to tell from my vote. 3,4. I did not notice anything remarkable regarding the two. Con used words such as "ridiculous" and so, not to be offensive, but to express how ridiculous, indeed, their opponent's arguments were. 5. Con made serious arguments and debunked their opponent's claims quite easily, while Pro's arguments were practically nonexistent, as they were not able to logically explain facts that Con proposed, such as matter appearing mysteriously. Not to mention that Pro presented distorted or partial truth, take the misused E=MC^2 (yes, C^2 and not C*2, as Pro implied by"two particles of aether (C2)" - with C being the ether particle) for example. 6. I do not believe the youtube videos by comic artists that Pro presented are considered valid sources, contrary to Con's.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to either specifically assess points made by both debaters, or assess the burden of proof along with the arguments of the side that carries it. While the voter does assess specific points (and lack thereof) made by Pro, there is no clear assessment of the strength of Con"s arguments, nor of BoP in this debate. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide some assessment of the specific sources. While there are some specifics provided on the Youtube videos, the voter simply states that Con"s are better without explaining why.

Note: Insulting the voter as part of your report does not increase the probability that the vote will be removed. Please refrain from doing so in the futur
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JimShady// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Con before and after the debate, as no substantive evidence was given by Pro. Akhenaten wins the conduct point, because atjacobmajor was sometimes a bit rude (but honest). Spelling and grammar is tied, and Con gets sources points because they were very reliable and supported his topic, while Pro mainly offered videos from incredible comic book artists and sources that did not support his argument. Convincing Arguments go to Con, as the burden of proof was on Pro and was not fulfilled. Pro tried to assert that we have not found fossils beneath the ocean, that magma is created by nuclear fission, and that glucose uses "spin energy". All of this was easily debunked by Con, who pointed out he had no sources, science background, or anything to back them up. He also stated we can't look for fossils beneath the ocean because of technical problems. Con wins this debate pretty easily in my opinion with the argument that Pro has given no explanation for the increase in Earth matter

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to either specifically assess points made by both debaters, or assess the burden of proof along with the arguments of the side that carries it. The voter does indicate that Pro carries the BoP, but must explain why he carries it and what that requires him to do. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide some assessment of the specific sources. While the assessment of Pro"s sources is sufficient, eneralizing about Con"s sources being reliable is not.

Note: The reporter"s beliefs on intent are not sufficient reason to remove this vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
@Akhenaten
Your baseless claims and insults only prove that you are immature. I have told you that again, but there is no need to be offensive just because I correctly pointed out your lack of education and inability to argue.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JimShady 3 months ago
JimShady
AkhenatenatjacobmajorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Con before and after the debate, as no substantive evidence was given by Pro. Conduct point is tied. Spelling and grammar is tied, and Con gets sources points because they were tested theories, widely agreed upon by science, and supported his topic (such as how light works) while Pro mainly offered videos from comic book artists and sources that did not support his argument. Convincing Arguments go to Con, as the burden of proof was on Pro (made claims) and was not fulfilled. Pro tried to assert that we have not found fossils beneath the ocean, that magma is created by nuclear fission, and that glucose uses "spin energy". All of this was easily debunked by Con, who pointed out he had no sources, science background, or anything to back them up. He also stated we can't look for fossils beneath the ocean because of technical problems. Con wins this debate pretty easily in my opinion with the argument that Pro has given no explanation for the increase in Earth matter
Vote Placed by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
AkhenatenatjacobmajorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: 3,4. I did not notice anything remarkable regarding the two. Both Pro's and Con's behaviour were a little ironic at some points, but not offensive at all. 5. Con's arguments were valid and supported by sources (as seen in the conversation on oceans and the nature of light, for example), while Pro countered with false claims without providing any trustworthy confirming sources, take the their assumption that the ether exists or the misused E=MC^2 (yes, C^2 and not C*2, as Pro implied by "two particles of aether (C2)" - with C being the ether particle) for example. Furthermore, Pro failed to explain the greatest problem of their initial claim, namely the mysteriously appearing matter, while the debate ended with Con facing no arguments against them. Moreover, Pro's whole first argument was only a link to a youtube video, which I find insufficient for such a debate. 6. While Pro's sources were mainly few youtube videos of unknown validity, Con cited numerous authoritative webpages.