The Instigator
abc123jendunee
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 391 times Debate No: 80925
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

abc123jendunee

Pro

Second debate here and right now I'm taking the side of egg came first. When I say egg, I mean chicken egg and by chicken I mean a modern chicken, just to make it clear. No bashing please, and the first round is acceptance. Thank you and good luck!
PowerPikachu21

Con

This is an interesting debate. I've heard "Which came first; the chicken or the egg" quite a few times. I'll be taking the "chicken came first" side.

It would be impossible to do this debate without giving in to the other person without claiming there's a god. Without the god, we'd just be saying "The egg hatched into the chicken. No, the chicken layed the egg" over and over again.

I say God created the chicken first because why the bother to make the first 10 eggs when you could make 5 chickens and 5 roosters to lay eggs which would contain chicks.

I await my opponent's response (I think this'll be much entertaining!)
Debate Round No. 1
abc123jendunee

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. First of all, I reject your notion of the need to bring up god. I, am an atheist and veil that I are better off with the actual science. No we won't be saying: "The egg hatched into the chicken. No, the chicken layed the egg". This is mainly the basis of my argument.

The main point is that from chicken eggs will always become chickens, but however, mutations that naturally occur make it that chickens don't always lay chicken egg (In a sense), through the process of evolution the first modern chicken evolved from dinosaur like creature, which is why the egg came first.

Now, I don't want to deviate off to mainly debating creationism (which, so is appears, is your belief) vs evolution, however I believe an amount is necessary.

This is a very interesting debate indeed...
PowerPikachu21

Con

Hmmm... It appears as though you created a flaw in your argument.

You said "When I say egg, I mean chicken egg". Then you go on to say that the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. If we are assuming the first PURE chicken (unless the mid-way evolved dinosaur counts, then good for me) is the first, then the dinosaurs' eggs do not count as a chicken egg. Isn't a chicken egg an egg hatched by a chicken? If this is true, then the first chicken wouldn't have been hatched from a pure chicken egg via evolution.

I believe we may be at an impasse yet again. Now the question boils down to "Which happened first? Did the first pure chicken evolve, or did the first pure chicken hatch from an egg layed by an almost fully evolved dinosaur?" Either way, I would like Pro to make a comment on this.
Debate Round No. 2
abc123jendunee

Pro

Interesting argument...

You said:

"You said "When I say egg, I mean chicken egg". Then you go on to say that the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. If we are assuming the first PURE chicken (unless the mid-way evolved dinosaur counts, then good for me) is the first, then the dinosaurs' eggs do not count as a chicken egg. Isn't a chicken egg an egg hatched by a chicken? If this is true, then the first chicken wouldn't have been hatched from a pure chicken egg via evolution."

But you seem to forget the definition of an egg: "An egg is the organic vessel containing the zygote in which an animal embryo develops until it can survive on its own, at which point the animal hatches. An egg results from fertilization of an ovum.". As you know, an egg's primary function is to hatch into the young of a species, and is defined as such and therefore should not be defined by the animal which lays it, but by the young that comes from it.

I await your response. I believe it is necessary for you to rebut my first point, unless you accept that I am correct. (Ha...)
PowerPikachu21

Con

Before I start my argument, I need to confirm something; did Pro change his definition? I feel like he might've. Someone aside from Pro say if he did indeed change his definition. Anyways, now for my response:

My opponent says "not be defined by the animal which lays it, but by the young that comes from it." We are at an impasse, as I said before; we need to answer this question: Did the dinosaur evolve into a pure chicken, or did the egg hatch into a pure chicken? I think Pro did a sly move in round 3; "but by the young that comes from it". If an almost evolved dinosaur's egg counts as a chicken egg, then this would mean he won, but if we were to accept this, then we might as well say the first chicken came first. Or instead, I would like to claim that the almost evolved dinosaur counts as a chicken. (I realized that if he did swap his definition, that would include the T-Rex's egg, which is foul play.)

I await my opponent's response. The last round will be summing up our arguments, and how the opponent attempted to refute them. Pro can counter my R3 rebuttal. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
abc123jendunee

Pro

To clarify, I have already stated, with much clearer and defined rationale why an egg of a chicken is an egg that hatches into a young chick.

Meaning:
"an almost evolved dinosaur's egg counts as a chicken egg"

Is not true because of the definition I gave.

An
"almost evolved dinosaur counts as a chicken"

is not true because an 'almost evolved dinosaur' is not, by taxonomy and genetics, a chicken.

Con should really disprove my actual facts and rationales and state why it isn't true before going on to say that I "did a sly move in round 3" without any evidence of your definition. In the end, Con has not at all refuted my points, which is quite disappointing on my end. Your Round 4 can be used for summation, but don't make any new points or significant rebuttals as I cannot refute this.
PowerPikachu21

Con

Okay. My stance is that we don't know if the dinosaur evolved into a chicken before she laid that egg. Pretty simple. My other stance is that the egg laid by the dinosaur does not count as a chicken egg. This is further proven by Pro's statement " not true because of the definition I gave." Therefore we can't assume the chicken egg came before the first chicken.

My opponent sort of made the point I needed to make to win in round 4. May the voters decide the victor!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Bosoxfaninla 1 year ago
Bosoxfaninla
Lol this isn't a debate anymore, it's scientifically proven it is the egg.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
The actual answer is neither. We arbitrarily make a cutoff, but every animal born is the same species as its parents. It takes an accumulation of changes before we would call 2 things separate species. There never was a first chicken, there is just a cutoff we arbitrarily decided on.
No votes have been placed for this debate.