The Instigator
renji_abarai
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
PeacefulChaos
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

What came first, the chicken or the egg

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,012 times Debate No: 18828
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

renji_abarai

Pro

The egg came first
PeacefulChaos

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. He has not specified if the first round is for acceptance only; therefore, I will be posting my arguments this round.

Burden of Proof:

My opponent, I assume, will be arguing that the egg came before the chicken.

I will be arguing that the chicken came before the egg.

1. Looking into a dictionary, we find that the chicken comes before the egg.

A dictionary is a book giving information on particular subjects or on a particular class of words, names, or facts, and is usually arranged alphabetically [1]. We are, of course, referring to a common, English dictionary. Looking into the definition of the word "dictionary", we find that a dictionary is arranged alphabetically. The alphabet is the letters of a language in their customary order [2]. Again, we are referring to the English alphabet, which consists of 26 letters. In the English alphabet, the letter "c" comes before the letter "e". All words beginning with "c" will come before all words beginning with "e". As a result, the chicken, technically, came first.

2. The formation of the egg shell relies on a protein found only in chicken's ovaries.

As shown by sites [3] [4] [5] and [6], the egg's shell requires a protein. This protein is called ovocleidin (OC-17), and it just so happens to be found only in a chicken's ovaries; therefore, the chicken had to come before the egg, or else a chicken egg could not have been made in the first place.

Apparently, the protein is specifically essential in kick-starting crystallisation- the early stages of the creation of a shell. See, the protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which make up the shell. Calcite crystals are produced very rapidly by chickens, seeing as they create six grams (0.2oz) of shell every 24 hours.

3. The Bible supports my argument that the chicken came before the egg.

The Bible states that God said "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." God then blessed them by saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." This was in Genesis 1:20-23 [7].

Notice how God created birds (this includes chickens, of course). Moreover, please take notice of how he (I am referring to God as "he" as a reference term) told the birds to multiply on the earth (meaning that they will produce eggs). God created birds first, which caused the birds to produce eggs (this includes the chicken and chicken egg); therefore, the chicken had to come first.

Conclusion:

I have provided proof that the chicken came before the egg by using the Bible, scientific evidence, and common sense. I await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments and wish him good luck.


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[4] http://articles.nydailynews.com...
[5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[6] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
[7]
http://reasonforhope.org...

Debate Round No. 1
renji_abarai

Pro

I must say that my opponent does pose a valid argument. There are gaping holes in those arguments though.

First, in the dictionary c does come before e but what does that have to do animals and eggs. Those are just letters and these are words that have been long debated. Any argument I have heard does not involve using the order of letters. Its like saying that dinosaurs came first instead of the world because dinosaur starts with a d.

Second, I must say that God is a very good answer and I too believe in god, but the theory of god creating animals out of nowhere and there being dinosaurs and caveman contradicts themselves. I can assure there were no chickens on Earth during the dinosaur period because they would have been killed.

Third, The egg must hatch the chicken and according to the theory of evolution reptiles aid eggs which gave birth to birds so that same concept would apply to this scenario as well.

Lastly, I must say that this a long drawn out debate for hundreds of years and that either side may post a good argument of any kind. I applaud my opponent for finding websites that contain information supported by there own opinions and facts. I however will not use sources (the websites). With this kind of debate which has been deemed an endless parabola of arguing, there will be many good websites that support there side very well, but there is still no actual proof. There are hundreds of websites that say there information and yet, this argument has never come to an end. Sources for this argument would therefore be futile to incorporate in this story.
PeacefulChaos

Con

I thank my opponent for speedily replying to my arguments and making his own. First, I shall consult what my opponent calls, "gaping holes" in my arguments.

Rebuttals:

My opponent: "First, in the dictionary c does come before e but what does that have to do animals and eggs."

You ask (although there is no question mark) what does the letter "c" coming before "e" have to do with animals and eggs. First of all, we are not discussing just any animal. We are discussing chickens. In addition, please remember that in order to win this debate I must prove that the chicken came before the egg. I have done so by showing how the chicken comes before the egg in a dictionary; therefore, this argument is completely valid. Moreover, in round 1 you did not state what we could or could not use as arguments or if we could or could not use semantics. As a result, I can use any variety of arguments that prove the chicken came before the egg (providing that they follow the guidelines of this site).

My opponent: "Its like saying that dinosaurs came first instead of the world because dinosaur starts with a d."

That argument is perfectly acceptable if the person who set up the debate did not specify if you are discussing the dictionary or not. Alternatively, the person who created the debate could have said, "There can be no abuse of semantics, definitions, etc. in this debate. We should all know what the resolution is talking about." Again, you have done neither of these things; therefore, any argument proving that the chicken came first is perfectly acceptable.

My opponent: "Second, I must say that God is a very good answer and I too believe in god, but the theory of god creating animals out of nowhere and there being dinosaurs and caveman contradicts themselves."

I am not entirely sure where my opponent has gotten cavemen. Nowhere did I state anything about cavemen (until this round). Moreover, I would like to point out that God is all-powerful, all knowing, and all wise; therefore, he can certainly create a couple of birds out of nowhere. There are, of course, people who claim that God is not real because it is impossible to be all knowing, all powerful, and all wise. We, humans, cannot understand God, because he is our creator. Does pottery understand the artist that created it? No, of course not. We can then apply this analogy to us. We are the pottery, and God is the artist (a crude yet effective analogy). Anyways, I do not want to get into the fact if God exists or not, as that is an entirely different debate. Besides, you yourself stated that you believe in God, so there should no longer be a problem.

My opponent: “Third, The egg must hatch the chicken and according to the theory of evolution reptiles aid eggs which gave birth to birds so that same concept would apply to this scenario as well.”

While this may be a convincing argument, it is nothing more than a theory. My scientific argument, however, is fact and has been proven. (My scientific argument is that the shell of an egg requires a protein found only in chicken ovaries.) A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact [8]. A synonym of the word “theory” is idea. Another synonym is notion hypothesis. As you can see, a theory is something that is not yet proven and can still be corrected. A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation, something known to be true [9]. As you can see, a fact is something that has been proven and has already been corrected. My opponent uses the theory of evolution to his advantage. The theory of evolution, I assume, is that dinosaurs laid eggs, which hatched chickens; however, we now must ask ourselves, “Would the egg hatched by the dinosaur be a chicken egg or a dinosaur egg?” Remember, we are discussing if the egg (we must assume a chicken egg, of course) came before the chicken. If the egg was a dinosaur egg, then my opponent’s one and only argument will have been rendered useless. If, however, the egg happened to be a chicken egg, it would go against my scientific argument. Remember that a chicken egg’s shell requires a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries. I assure you that a reptile is certainly not a chicken, since chickens are birds; therefore, the reptile could not have laid a chicken egg. Rather, they would have laid a dinosaur egg (not a chicken egg) that hatched a chicken. This means that the chicken before the chicken egg. Moreover, it is my opponent's argument (a theory) vs. my argument (a fact). As I have shown earlier, a theory is nothing more than an idea or notion hypothesis whereas a fact has already been proven. This supports my argument even more.

In response to my opponent’s last paragraph, I would like to point out that sources are not just to provide evidence, but also to show that your evidence is valid. Otherwise, I simply could have made up that argument that a protein found in the egg’s shell is essential to it and that it is only found in a chicken’s ovaries. I shall not expand upon this further, because the argument of whether or not sources are useless is an entirely different debate.

Conclusion:

I have refuted all of my opponent’s rebuttals and he has yet to address my scientific argument; therefore, my arguments still stand. This debate has turned out to be interesting and entertaining. I thank my opponent, again, for creating this debate.

[8] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[9] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 2
renji_abarai

Pro

I am thoroughly enjoying this debate even though this is my first debate on this website! I am also lucky to have chosen someone with more experience than I. As he pointed out in each argument, I have missed certain key points in my first argument, but that is because I did not know what to put at first. My opponent has decided to plow his way through this debate with straight logic and that is admirable, but what if I did the same? That is what this topic has been about for the past hundred years. There was and never will be a clear winner for this argument, but I suppose I should focus on the task at hand.

First,
You say that I said your argument about the chicken coming before the egg ii true because c comes before e in the dictionary. I set no restrictions in the beginning because I wanted an all out logical debate with no restrictions whatsoever. I never said your argument was not true nor did I deny that it could actually be good evidence. You on the other are indirectly saying that my statement the dinosaur came before the world because it starts with a d is invalid. By doing this you cancel your own "dictionary" argument yourself.

Second,
You did not have to mention cavemen in order for me talk about them. That is just saying that I did not mention anything about ovaries so I don't where you got the idea from. I in fact do know that you got it from biology and the Internet as I have gotten cavemen from history. Cavemen and dinosaurs were said to be in the same era and thinking about chickens for a second, I would find it hard to believe that chickens which are about a foot tall could live around dinosaurs who are about a 1,000 feet tall. They would get stepped on and killed as will all other animal life.

Third,
A theory can be proven and questioning the theory of evolution is saying that research about certain is a lie. Scientists have researched specific areas and found that new species evolve over time to adapt to their environment. By your argument, I am assuming you question the theory of evolution so that means you believe the dinosaurs just died and a new era of animals was instantly created. Then that era died at the same time and a new era of animals as created immediately and I find this hard to believe. I am not merely using an entire theory from the theory of evolution, but I am incorporating facts in as well.

Sources for this argument are perfectly acceptable as would all debates, but this is a debate that hasn't proven yet even with scientists and researchers. Sources are just using others perceptions and I could do just the same but I prefer not too.

Conclusion,
This is very interesting and I can't wait to see the outcome of this debate. I apologize for writing my debate this late which is close to the deadline, but I was caught up the past two days. I must thank my opponent for giving me an opportunity to debate with him and I hope we will still have many great debates such as this.
PeacefulChaos

Con


I am impressed by my opponent's’ts last few arguments and I admit he brings up a few good points. I shall refute these points so that my arguments will still stand.



Rebuttals:



My opponent: “I never said your argument was not true nor did I deny that it could actually be good evidence.”



Perhaps you did not; however, you still tried to prove that my argument had no place in this debate. I, therefore, took it into my hands to defend my case.



My opponent: “You on the other are indirectly saying that my statement the dinosaur came before the world because it starts with a d is invalid. By doing this you cancel your own "dictionary" argument yourself.”



It is quite obvious that you did not read my arguments thoroughly enough to realize what my point was. I actually was saying that the dinosaur argument is perfectly valid if the person who created the debate did not specify if they were talking about the dictionary. Alternatively, the person creating the debate could have stated that there could be no abuse in semantics, definitions, etc. to avoid arguments such as the dictionary argument. You, however, did not do this. As a result, my argument still stands. Here is a quote from me that proves I stated the dinosaur argument is perfectly valid:



“That argument is perfectly acceptable if the person who set up the debate did not specify if you are discussing the dictionary or not.”



Please read the full paragraph again if you have to.



My opponent: “You did not have to mention cavemen in order for me talk about them. That is just saying that I did not mention anything about ovaries so I don't where you got the idea from.”



I am not entirely sure what you are trying to point out. Moreover, because this debate is not concerned with whether or not I did or did not mention cavemen, I will drop this.



My opponent: “Cavemen and dinosaurs were said to be in the same era and thinking about chickens for a second, I would find it hard to believe that chickens which are about a foot tall could live around dinosaurs who are about a 1,000 feet tall. They would get stepped on and killed as will all other animal life.”



Before I refute this, I will simply clarify some points to make myself understood. I stated that the Bible supports my arguments that the chicken came before the egg. Now, chickens were created (according to the Bible) on the fifth day. All land animals (including dinosaurs) were created on the sixth day. This is in Genesis 1:24-31. My opponent claims that chickens could not have lived with dinosaurs. He did not use any other arguments to back this up, so I all I have to do is prove that chickens could have lived during dinosaur times. They could have done so because there were many other small and tiny animals with similar defenses as the chicken; however, they still managed to survive. It is, therefore, only logical to assume that chickens could have lived during the dinosaur period. Moreover, chickens can fly away from any enemies or predators (as long as they are not domesticated, which they were not). In addition, the Bible states that chickens lived during dinosaur periods. My opponent states that chickens could not have lived during those times because they would have been killed (I already proved that wrong). Yet there are still chickens with us today; therefore, we can assume (using the Bible) that chickens could have lived during the times of dinosaurs.



My opponent: “A theory can be proven and questioning the theory of evolution is saying that research about certain is a lie. Scientists have researched specific areas and found that new species evolve over time to adapt to their environment. By your argument, I am assuming you question the theory of evolution so that means you believe the dinosaurs just died and a new era of animals was instantly created. Then that era died at the same time and a new era of animals as created immediately and I find this hard to believe. I am not merely using an entire theory from the theory of evolution, but I am incorporating facts in as well.”



First, let me clarify two main things.



  • I am not stating that the theory of evolution is a lie.

  • I am not stating that dinosaurs “just died” and a new era of animals was instantly created.


To show these two main points, I will go through my argument once more (somewhat differently) and I encourage all readers to read it thoroughly to understand it.


My opponent uses the theory of evolution to his advantage; however, this axe cuts two ways (so to speak). In other words, the theory of evolution can work in my advantage as well. We have already agreed that the theory of evolution is that reptiles laid eggs. Over time, they began to evolve. Finally, a reptile laid an egg that hatched a chicken. This makes it sound as if the egg came first; however, we have to consider if the egg hatched by the reptile was a chicken egg or a dinosaur egg. If it was a chicken egg, then that means the egg (a chicken egg, of course) would have come before the chicken. The only problem is that the egg laid by the reptile cannot be a chicken egg. Remember that my scientific argument stated a chicken egg needs a protein (ovocleidin) and without the protein the shell of the egg cannot form. Now, this protein is found only in a chicken’s ovaries; therefore, a reptile could not have laid a chicken egg (since reptiles cannot produce those proteins and only chickens can). So the egg laid by the reptile has to be a reptile egg, which means that the chicken came before the egg (the chicken egg, that is).


As you can see, the theory of evolution supports me more than it supports my opponent. He has essentially given me an argument, and I thank him for doing so.


Conclusion:


I have refuted all of my opponent’s rebuttals. My opponent has not provided any arguments that the egg came before the chicken at all. I realize that he made an argument that was supported by the theory of evolution, but I showed how the theory of evolution supports me and not him. Because my opponent did not provide arguments that prove the egg came before the chicken, he did not meet the BOP. I, however, have provided evidence showing how the chicken came before the egg. This evidence appeals to religion (the Bible argument), science (the protein argument), and people who like a witty answer (the dictionary argument). Moreover, my argument concerning proteins has gone unchallenged throughout the whole debate. I, therefore, urge you to vote Con!



Before finally ending this debate and putting it into the voting period, I would like to say that I enjoyed this debate very much and that my opponent did well. I wish him good luck in other future debates and I hope that he has enjoyed this one as much as I have.


Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Renji wrote:
: eggs have to hatch the chicken so it cam from another animal.

I've always considered this the winning argument, but Pro waited until the argument was over to voice it.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
If you gave conduct to Pro then how come you voted it as tied?
Posted by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
Thank you
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
When I said "the other two points are to counter the rest of the Vbomb" that is refering to Xiao vote bombing a full 7 points and imabench countering 5 of those points (so I countered the last 2 points). Since I would have voted 1 - 2, by adding the counter, that brings it to 3 - 2.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
It supports me alone. The theory is that the reptile laid an egg. It cannot be a chicken egg (because of the protein argument) so it has to be a reptile egg, which means that the chicken came before the egg.

Moreover, this particular theory is supported by a fact; therefore, it is still very possible. Moreover, you didn't really refute it. You actually created it for me, so it's just another argument for me :)
Posted by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
It supports both of us and its a theory to begin with :) as you have said yourslef so it is not solid facts. Theorys can be disproven :)
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
You shouldn't be continuing your arguments in the comment section, lol. I already showed how the theory of evolution supports me, not you :P
Posted by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
As i can not post any more debates, I will say that if you read your own arguments more carefully you did cancel out my argument and yours about the dictionary reason. I must also add that I did not use the theory of evolution in my whole argument as that would be obviously leve me defeated in the very first round. Your statement about Ovaries is fine and true, but eggs have to hatch the chicken so it cam from another animal. I have provided a link below that explains proof for animals changing based on their environment. This is a fact and has had much reasearch done on it. I am merely pointing at some extra points on this comment and I hope you all vote for who you think is right and not if me or con has told you to :) I thouroughly enjoyed my debate with con and if possible I would like to do another debate with him very soon :)

http://anthro.palomar.edu...
Posted by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
Thank you.:)
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Rebuttal round means that you rebut all your opponent's points and that you cannot include new information/arguments. In all other rounds you should still be rebutting your opponent's arguments. The rebuttal is, you could say, a conclusion.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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: Con's opening argument was too strong, pro could not sufficiently rebut his opponents points, nor defend his.
Vote Placed by htennis 4 years ago
htennis
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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: Good performance from CON
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was alot more convincing.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 5 years ago
mariahjane
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't nderstand why saying the "c" became before "e" was points off conduct. Tha is a legitimate argument by the rules of this debate.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 5 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments and opted to use sources. Conduct goes to Pro since Con used semantics in the dictionary argument.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con's first argument would be worth points off for conduct, but pro endorsed it. Con's third argument was equally silly, but again Pro liked it. Con's second argument had some substance, and Pro never came back. Pro insisted that he couldn't win in a hundred years, and that Con's arguments were good. I agreed with Pro at the beginning of the debate, but Con wins.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately, I vote 1 - 2 for Con. That is sources to Con for using sources, and Conduct to Pro because Con pulled a semantics argument when the resolution is clear. Con could have done better with his arguments. The protein mentioned in only found in chickens in today's time, however going into the past, it is possible and likely that a non-chicken ancestor of the chicken also produced that protein (would have had to to make chickens). The other 2 points are to counter the rest of the Vbomb.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the pro and still do but only because of my own opinions. both arguments provided stellar debates but neither was more convincing than the other to me. Con did use sources so i gave them that but I gave the pro arguments, grammar, and conduct only because of the vote bomb by xiao. still a very good debate i applaud both sides
Vote Placed by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
renji_abaraiPeacefulChaosTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe Con won. I myself believe in God and I cannot see how Pro believes in God, but doesn't believe he created everything. That's a question I have. Also, Con has better arguments.