The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Bwacit
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

any cause is caused by another cause

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 2 votes the winner is...
Bwacit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,194 times Debate No: 67389
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause, therefore a first cause would be caused by a cause that isn't a cause, but any cause is caused by another cause, so a first cause is impossible
Bwacit

Con

INTRO

I accept the Opposition or Con side of this debate, because before everything existed, something must have started
EVERYTHING, and that could not have been caused by anything or else it would not be the first thing to happen. Therefore, it must have just BEEN, not caused.

Also, since the Pro side has not laid out any definitions or a weighing mechanism, I will.

DEFINITIONS

Cause "A reason or start or spark a happening" - Oxford Dictionary, 2002.

WEIGHING MECHANISM

I would like this debate to be judged upon which side can best prove that at least one thing in this universe is/was a or not a cause. I will be proving that at least one thing is history was not a cause of something else, and the Pro side will be stating otherwise.

POINTS

1) The first thing

Judge, this world, this UNIVERSE, must have been started by something. And that thing must not have been caused by anything else, or it would be a cause as well, showing that the beginning of everything must have just BEEN, not Caused, or it would not exist.

This supports the weighing mechanism because the beginning of everything must have started by something other than a cause, therefore meaning at least one thing in history was not a cause/ caused by anything.

2) Some things simply have no effect.
http://www.nytimes.com...

Judge, when you breathe out, you release about 5ml of CO2 into the air. This amount is so small and insignificant, that it virtually has no effect on ANYTHING, showing that it is not the cause of anything, and therefore supporting the weighing mechanism by stating that not everything is a cause or caused by something.

Thank you for your time, and due to these reasons and many more, the Opposition, or Con, should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

eternal=no beginning and no end

basicly im saying everything just is, as there is no first cause

a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause, so how could there be a first cause, when the first cause couldn't have been caused?
Bwacit

Con

Again, my opponent has made no specific points, nor has he refuted any of my points, and by not disagreeing he has accepted both my weighing mechanism and definitions, showing that by default the Opposition should win this debate.

The Pro has no points standing, although he is trying to say that everything is and there was no first cause, but scientifically speaking, there must have been a start to EVERYTHING, showing that indeed one thing was not caused by something, and it becomes obvious that the Con side should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

a first cause can not be caused by a cause that is not a cause
Bwacit

Con

My opponent is stating that "a first cause can not be caused by a cause that is not a cause", but what he is failing to understand is that the first cause must have been the first, so therefore is must have just Happened..not caused by anything in particular.

And again. They have not directly refuted any of my points nor stated any particular points of their own, so at this time the Opposition is currently winning this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

a thing can not be caused by a cause that is not a cause, therefore a first cause is impossible

any cause is caused by another cause

a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause, therefore a first cause is impossible, as it cant be a cause

there must be a cause to cause a cause :)
Bwacit

Con

My opponent has stated that "a first cause can not be caused by a cause that is not a cause", but what he is failing to understand is that the first cause, seeing as it is the first, just HAPPENED and was not caused by anything.

And again. The Pro side of this debate has not given any direct refutes to my points, nor specifically stated any of his own, showing that at this time the Opposition (Con) is winning this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause
Bwacit

Con

Throughout this entire debate, my opponent has merely stated the same thing wavin round, not even classifying it a point, so therefore my opponent has no points standing, where as I have two. I would like to start by strengthening my points, and then weighing this debate.

1) The first thing.
The first thing was the cause of everything, but not caused, it just HAPPENED, which supports the weighing mechanism by stating that there is at least on cause that was not caused by anything

2) Some things simply have no effect. A single breath emits a very small amount of CO2 into the air, and that gas effects virtually NOTHING (http://www.nytimes.com...) so therefore it is caused but not a cause, which is directly refuting the Proposition's case, and supporting the weighing mechanism.

The weighing mechanism, which was defined earlier as 'which side can best prove that at least one thing that is a cause has or has not happened in history'. Judge, as you can see, only one side, the Opposition, has made any relevant points, so therefore the winner of this debate is clear.

Thank you for your time and patience, and I strongly urge you to vote for the Con side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
hmm, a thing can not be caused by a cause that is not a cause, therefore a first cause is impossible
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
and effect is implied whenever cause is used, they can not exist separately, if i say effect, then cause is already implied
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
cause implies a cause causing it, or else it can not exist
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
I think he wishes to say that A cause will produce another cause. Or, Effect is produced by cause.
Posted by ATHOS 2 years ago
ATHOS
Don't you mean any cause is caused by an effect from another cause?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
eternal=no beginning and no end, only now

matter can only transform

saying there is a beginning Is much more complicated then for it just to be whatever it is
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
This debate is really in favor of Pro. How am I supposed to explain something happened if something else didn't happen to create it? I was born, my mother and father had sexual intercourse, that's what caused it. I am typing this, what caused it? This debate was created.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
intended*
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
I am born today now

a cause is either by choice or not, indented or random
Posted by Cassius 2 years ago
Cassius
I've read this like nine times and I still don't understand.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
vi_spexBwacitTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I was really in favor of Pro, because I believe Con stated that there is an effect. Cause: You have to take in air to survive. Effect: You breathe out and release 5ml of CO2 air. Although I believe Pro won, it was really in favor of him, and he didn't really provide any points, so conduct to Con. Also, something did cause the universe to be created, people have different theories, for example, the Big Bang, God, etc. Many grammar mistakes in Pro's case.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
vi_spexBwacitTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro misspelled " basically", never capitalized, and forgot to use an apostrophe in I'm....So s and g to Con. Only Con had a source.