http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=3&sort=0&category=Science Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2013-06-19T19:34:37-08:00 2013-06-19T19:34:37-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Are-human-beings-destroying-EARTH/1/ (Voting Period) I firmly believe that human beings are destroying our Earth. I have evidence of such degradation in the everyday life. Take into account deforestation, caused by the high request of land for agriculture and urban development, the extensive action of the logging industry, and also wildfires and acid rains. As another proof of this ruin, let's think about air pollution, caused by industries, heating systems and traffic of motor vehicles, that cause serious problems to respiratory and cardiovascular apparatus, but also contribute to the global heating, a problem nowadays much discussed. Moreover, the industrial system has spread through advertising a consumer psychosis that obliges people to chase happiness buying unnecessary items and throwing away others, such as clothes, food, furniture and objects, considered as garbage even if they're still usable. All this rubbish takes a long time to degrade, and remains in natural environments ruining it. Today, also http://www.debate.org/debates/Are-human-beings-destroying-EARTH/1/comments/ 2007-10-29T20:18:40-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-bang-theory-is-ridiculous-can-not-be-proven-and-should-not-be-taught-in-schools/1/ (Voting Period) The whole "big bang" theory is ludicrous on it's face. It surmises that the entire universe is the result of nothing expanding into something through the force of density and temperature. If there was nothing, then where did the density come from, how do you gauge the temperature of nothingness? The theory suggests that space itself is constantly expanding. Now, I'm no scientist, but if anyone can please explain how space is expandable I'd love to make my living room a tad larger. There is no real evidence that this theory is accurate so we should NOT be teaching it to our children in public schools. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-bang-theory-is-ridiculous-can-not-be-proven-and-should-not-be-taught-in-schools/1/comments/ 2007-11-07T18:10:16-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/parallel-universes-vs-religion-and-other-scientific-theories-and-finds/1/ (Voting Period) I believe that when we speak of heaven and hell we are only speaking of two out of many parallel worlds in which cross ours like a cats cradle. I believe that it all is concieved in a mix of chaos and that the string theory is true for every strummed string emits a wave starting an effect in which changes the course of history. I am not just speaking of actual strings but of cause and effect and how every decision branches off a new world in which that decision was made differently or not made at all.This all has to do with quantum physics and quantum mechanics which covers how chaos is order and picks apart the paradoxes that perplex our lives in this world. So my question is what are the other opinions out there? who could counter act science and the proof that it has offered us? Also to be more specific I also believe God himself is the one scientist and that science and religion can coexist and cooperate together. http://www.debate.org/debates/parallel-universes-vs-religion-and-other-scientific-theories-and-finds/1/comments/ 2007-11-23T21:20:54-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Cloning-Humans-for-reproductive-purposes/1/ (Voting Period) Several complications and issues would arise if even just one Human being was created through cloning. While the idea at first, often sounds attractive, it is something that we must avoid. I do not debate this from any type of religious ideas, merely logical, political, and moral ones. First, this person would have a brain that has to follow instincts and frames of mind, such as having parents, and having your own identity. They would not have parents of any sort. They would also not have their own identity. This "person" would be ultimately confused through life, as the instincts and standards of their instinctual brain could not be fulfilled. They would be the exact DNA copy of another. This leads us to a legal issue. Because this hypothetical person is manufactured and is an exact copy of another, they would never be "born" which leads to whether they are a citizen or not. The manufacturers would then "own" the person. They would be utilized f http://www.debate.org/debates/Cloning-Humans-for-reproductive-purposes/1/comments/ 2007-11-24T16:33:22-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/What-is-the-best-alternate-transportation-fuel-to-replace-gas-I-argue-that-it-is-hydrogen./1/ (Voting Period) EtOH is a disaster - both using more energy than is produced, and also depleting food sources (ie corn ) for humans, which is more important Biofuels are OK but have major problems and will never make up even a FRACTION of our energy usage in the transportation sector (cars, planes , boats, trains, trucks etc) Bottom line :any source of energy based on current photosynthesis, which is 1% efficient, is meaningingless in the long term or from an efficiency standpoint Hydgrogen can be made from any source of electricity and water. the world is 2/3 water the sun provides about 15000 times the energy we need on a daily basis just in the US lower 48 territory alone to produce the hydrogen to run our entire transportation sector at only 5 % efficiency. photovoltaics, nuclear, wind power, hydrolectric, coal, gas, and and other sources of electricity can all be used to produce hydrogen hydrogen will only make water when burned stoichiometri http://www.debate.org/debates/What-is-the-best-alternate-transportation-fuel-to-replace-gas-I-argue-that-it-is-hydrogen./1/comments/ 2007-12-09T17:45:35-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Virus-is-alive/1/ (Voting Period) Viruses are not alive in the scientific meaning of the word "alive". (which is counter to what you claimed in one of your comments). http://www.debate.org/debates/Virus-is-alive/1/comments/ 2007-12-12T17:10:00-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Determinism-Free-will-is-an-illusion/1/ (Voting Period) Free will is an illusion. Every action is caused by previous events, hence, no action can be freely chosen. Immanuel Kant writes : "If one takes attributes of existence of things in time for attributes of things in themselves, which is the usual way of thinking, the necessity in the causal relation can in no way be united with freedom. They are contradictory to each other, for the former implies that every event, and consequently every action which occurs at a certain point of time, is necessary under the condition of what preceded it. Since the past is no longer in my power, every action which I perform is necessary because of determining grounds which are not in my power. That means that at the time I act I am never free." In addition, before the human consciousness willingly takes an action the unconsciousness of the brain has already begun that action. Since the free will of humans has no control of the unconsciousness, human actions are necessaril http://www.debate.org/debates/Determinism-Free-will-is-an-illusion/1/comments/ 2007-12-19T10:29:58-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/words-are-the-key-to-everything./1/ (Voting Period) so many people debate things that will not have a conclusion. the debaters will always believe exactly what they believe. i would like to challenge anyone to debate with me about the power of written words in our life. it is not about GOD or the devil, it is about the words that you decide to use and serve. whatever you want in this life is already here for your benefit. the beginning is the word, always the word is first. http://www.debate.org/debates/words-are-the-key-to-everything./1/comments/ 2007-12-21T21:58:55-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Intelligent-Design-is-not-a-scientific-theory./1/ (Voting Period) Intelligent Design is a much of a scientific theory as sleeping is a sport (this isn't my point of contention, mind you). By any reasonable account of science, ID fails to qualify as a scientific theory. First, I look to Karl Popper's account of science for support. Popper's principle contribution to the philosophy of science is the concept of falsification; that is, a proposed theory must have the capable of refutation. Theories that escape refutation are not necessarily unhelpful or even incorrect, they are simply not scientific. To wit: a proponent of a theory must specify what evidence would cause him or her to abandon a theory. While ID is in principle falsifiable (every "gap" in evolution could be theoretically filled and thus the mechanism of natural selection could explain how every species that ever existed came to be), it is not in practice. The ID supporter will simply make ad hoc modifications for their theory to escape refutation (this is not a http://www.debate.org/debates/Intelligent-Design-is-not-a-scientific-theory./1/comments/ 2007-12-21T22:06:40-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-Was-NOT-Caused-By-Humans/1/ (Voting Period) Global warming is a natural phase of the Earth. Back in the Ice Age, the Earth melted the ice on its own. All of these scientists out there in this world are saying that humans caused global warming and we are all going to die some day because of it. so are they saying that millions of years ago when cavemen were dominant, that they emitted harmful things into the enviroment? The Ice Age wasn't started because of them. And I can tell you that it didn't melt because of people either. No, of course I am not saying that our car emissions and our factory emissions don't hurt the Earth at all; because they do. Of course the harmful emissions are not good for our planet. Yes, they are accelerating global warming and are speeding it up, but we as human beings did not cause this. This state that Earth is in is natural right now. The Earth goes through phases and we as humanity need to realize that. http://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-Was-NOT-Caused-By-Humans/1/comments/ 2007-12-23T22:59:10-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-Revolves-Around-the-Sun/1/ (Voting Period) It simply cannot be proven that the Earth revolves the Sun. We may chart the projectories of what we perceive the movement of the Earth and the Sun and the other planets to be. But from Earth, we are locked into a fixed point of perception, so that we cannot properly identify the movement of objects, except in relation to ourselves. Hence, we can tell that the distance between the Earth and the Sun increases or decreases in certain patterns, but from this, we may only infer that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and we cannot matter-of-factly prove it. We cannot actually tell whether it is the Earth or the Sun which is moving. Moreover, there are no direct external clues. When you move your hand you can observe the motion of the air which your hand moves through. But when the earth supposedly moves, there is nothing immediately surrounding the Earth which reacts to the motion. Hence, there are no indicators of movement. The only evidence which we have http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-Revolves-Around-the-Sun/1/comments/ 2007-12-28T13:34:35-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/God-used-Evolution-to-Create-the-World./1/ (Voting Period) If you believe God used evolution to create the world then you cannot believe the Bible to be literal. We know that for every sin there must be a penalty paid and that penalty is death. We also know that there was no death before sin, the world was made perfect. Stating the God created the world in millions of years means animals killed each other before there was a sin. http://www.debate.org/debates/God-used-Evolution-to-Create-the-World./1/comments/ 2007-12-28T23:02:17-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/the-ACLU-is-a-criminal-communist-group-and-should-be-disbanded-by-the-justice-department/1/ (Voting Period) the ACLU, or the American Criminal Licentiousness Union, is a criminal cabal, undermining the tenets of America, and trying to destroy this nation from within they attack the boy scouts, the flag, the military, God, Christians, and pretty much anything good they support liars, criminals, terrorists, child molesters, and democrats, not necessarily in that order Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues: the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211); the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4); the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210); the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264); the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18); opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262); opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263); opposition of spousal consent http://www.debate.org/debates/the-ACLU-is-a-criminal-communist-group-and-should-be-disbanded-by-the-justice-department/1/comments/ 2007-12-29T01:42:49-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Missionary-style-is-the-best-way-to-have-sex./1/ (Voting Period) Granted this is all subjective but I think that missionary style is the best way to have sex. I'm not saying that one's sex life should involve exclusively the missionary position. Good sex involves a variety of sex positions and experimentation but this isn't to suggest that there isn't a single superior position. I'll present my basic arguments for this opening section and I hope the Con can offer an alternative position to contend with my assertion. 1.) Missionary is more comfortable for both partners. I think this is obvious and intrinsic with the positioning of missionary. 2.) Missionary is inherently more intimate. Because you are face to face with your partner it is more intimate and in a way more thrilling because all of the emotions associated with sex are shared. 3.) It is pleasurable for both partners. It doesn't have a bias towards one gender, both benefit and both are involved. Some might contend that it is primarily the man that particip http://www.debate.org/debates/Missionary-style-is-the-best-way-to-have-sex./1/comments/ 2007-12-31T22:45:13-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Egg-or-Chicken/1/ (Voting Period) What came first, the chicken or the egg? This is a very old question. I want to debate on it. The egg came first from the time of the dinosaurs. The chicken came later on. http://www.debate.org/debates/Egg-or-Chicken/1/comments/ 2008-01-01T12:38:18-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Scientifically-speaking-abortion-should-not-be-legal./1/ (Voting Period) Much of the debate surrounding abortion is whether or not a fetus is a person. If they are a person, I think most agree that they should have some fundamental rights. So what does science have to say about all this? Well, genetically speaking, a fetus is genetically indistinguishable from a baby, a child, or an adult. If you define personhood genetically, a fetus is as much a person as you or I, and entitled to the same fundamental rights. Now, this definition of personhood may not be the correct one, and I admit that. Many competing philosophies define personhood differently. However, I think this definition is superior to others because it involves as little philosophy and as much science as possible, which seems to be what we want these days. Even if you disagree with this definition of personhood, you have to wonder about it. And once you wonder about it, you've lost. If you went hunting, and you had cause to think that there MAY be a person hiding http://www.debate.org/debates/Scientifically-speaking-abortion-should-not-be-legal./1/comments/ 2008-01-01T16:05:31-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-1969-Moon-Landing-Was-A-Complete-Hoax/1/ (Voting Period) During my sophomore year of college, I presented a persuasive speech for a Speech course that changed my opinion about one of the biggest "accomplishments" of the 20th century. What I'm about to state may excite you, anger you, make you ponder, or make you think that I have a screw loose... If you stayed up to watch the 1969 moon landing, you saw cinematic magic at its best. That's right, the moon landing was about as real as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. When I originally did the research for this speech five years ago, 10% of the U.S. population believed what I stated above. Now, five years later, that number has increased to 20%. Before I start, I do not usually believe in conspiracy theories. In fact, I usually associate the people who believe in them as a little off. This one, however, is hard for me to bypass. I'm not even saying that this is 100% truth, I'm just saying there is a lot of information to support the fallacies. Here is a l http://www.debate.org/debates/The-1969-Moon-Landing-Was-A-Complete-Hoax/1/comments/ 2008-01-01T19:09:02-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-environmental-impact-of-industrialization-is-the-primary-cause-of-earth-s-current-warming-trend./1/ (Voting Period) Many opponents of Global Warming Theory will point to the cyclical nature of earth's climate system and suggest that the current trend is simply a natural rise in temperature due to this cycle. This theory is false. Although Earth cycles through warm and cold climate periods, the environmental impact of human industrialization is the primary cause of the current warming trend. In order to understand the role that Carbon Dioxide plays in earth's natural climate cycles, several factors must be considered: The amount of vegetation on earth, The current level of volcanic activity, and the greenhouse effect. In a natural environment free of modern human industry, volcanic activity was the primary source of Carbon Dioxide. This carbon dioxide contributed to the greenhouse effect in the same way that it does today. The greenhouse effect causes the earth's atmosphere to reflect infrared light at a greater rate during periods of high Carbon Dioxide content. Th http://www.debate.org/debates/The-environmental-impact-of-industrialization-is-the-primary-cause-of-earth-s-current-warming-trend./1/comments/ 2008-01-02T00:51:07-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-1969-Moon-Landing-Was-A-Complete-Hoax/2/ (Voting Period) During my sophomore year of college, I presented a persuasive speech for a Speech course that changed my opinion about one of the biggest "accomplishments" of the 20th century. What I'm about to state may excite you, anger you, make you ponder, or make you think that I have a screw loose... If you stayed up to watch the 1969 moon landing, you saw cinematic magic at its best. That's right, the moon landing was about as real as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. When I originally did the research for this speech five years ago, 10% of the U.S. population believed what I stated above. Now, five years later, that number has increased to 20%. Before I start, I do not usually believe in conspiracy theories. In fact, I usually associate the people who believe in them as a little off. This one, however, is hard for me to bypass. I'm not even saying that this is 100% truth, I'm just saying there is a lot of information to support the fallacies. Here is a l http://www.debate.org/debates/The-1969-Moon-Landing-Was-A-Complete-Hoax/2/comments/ 2008-01-02T19:35:00-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-impossible-for-two-humans-to-physically-touch-eachother./1/ (Voting Period) It is impossible for two humans to physically touch eachother. Gimme your best shot! I'll make my case in the second round. http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-impossible-for-two-humans-to-physically-touch-eachother./1/comments/ 2008-01-03T15:53:41-08:00