http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&category=Science Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2009-11-20T16:04:29-08:00 2009-11-20T16:04:29-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Philosophy-Determinism-Accurately-Describes-Reality/1/ (Voting Period) In this debate, my opponent is taking the hard determinist stance that everything in the whole of existence is predetermined. My duty is to demonstrate that some things are not determined, and I will also present a case for free will. Definitions: Determinism - The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. [1] Free Will - The philosophical doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. [1] ========== The Microcosm ========== On a small scale, it is quite clear that quantum particles are indeterministic and here's why: The Copenhagen Interpretation (standard interpretation) of Quantum Theory holds that the laws of nature are indeterministic and probabilistic. [2] In this interpretation, a small particle swerves in a particular direction at a part http://www.debate.org/debates/Philosophy-Determinism-Accurately-Describes-Reality/1/comments/ 2009-11-19T00:48:25-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-While-debating-my-opponent-cannot-lose-The-Game./1/ (Post Voting Period) We will be debating this topic free style which means any system of debate from conventional to unconventional are welcome so long as each case is refuted in the manner suiting the style they have chosen. Semantics arguments are not allowed and are subject to dismissal by the judging populous. Semantics arguments include any attacks or kritiks on the resolution or any of the rules to follow. Here is my framework, which is not subject to interpretation, should be taken literally, and are not up for negotiation: 1)My opponent must know what the Internet meme "The Game" is. If my opponent is arguing on any other game (ie Clue, Monopoly, strip poker) my opponent forfeits the debate and you must vote CON. 2) If my opponent wishes to win any votes on this debate, my opponent must not mention The Game in any manner or power of suggestion (ie "I don't know what we're playing here and I have never known" is not acceptable. It is a reference to The Game.) 3) My opp http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-While-debating-my-opponent-cannot-lose-The-Game./1/comments/ 2009-10-22T20:10:51-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Two-heads-are-better-than-one/1/ (Voting Period) They say "two heads are better than one" and they are right. I'm not talking about conjoined or Siamese twins here by the way - where two foetuses become fused in the womb and two distinct babies are born attached to each other - I'm talking about those fortunate mutants who are born with one body and two heads. The advantages of having two heads are manifold. Below are three that come to my head immediately (though there'd be six if I was lucky enough to have two heads). 1 – Save valuable seconds crossing the road. Instead of wasting time looking left, right, then left again before stepping off the pavement (sidewalk), you can look both ways simultaneously. 2 – End the misery of exam revision. Simply give your textbooks to your other head to study while you watch television. Then when you come to sit the exam, your other head can discreetly whisper the answers into your ear. 3 – Drink and drive with impunity. If the police pull you over on your way http://www.debate.org/debates/Two-heads-are-better-than-one/1/comments/ 2009-11-11T19:59:08-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Heliocentric-model-of-the-solar-system-is-more-correct-than-the-Geocentric-model./1/ (Voting Period) My opponent will argue that the heliocentric model of the solar system(1) is more correct than the geocentric model(2). I will show that his/her assertion is wrong. 1) My opponent might try to present testimony of various authorities in the field. However, if you examine their claims, you will find that they all source one specific authority, Copernicus(3). This would be OK except that Copernicus' model was laid to waist by Einstein's theory of general relativity(4) which allows for no privileged frame of reference(5). What this means is that according to general relativity, there can be no point that is considered the center of the solar system. 2) My opponent might try to convince you by showing how the orbits of the planets are ellipses(6) all around the Sun. However, please note that an ellipse has *two* foci, neither of which is in the center of the ellipse (a point on the line between the two foci and equidistant from both of them.) Even if one of t http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Heliocentric-model-of-the-solar-system-is-more-correct-than-the-Geocentric-model./1/comments/ 2009-11-18T12:58:03-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/the-chicken-came-before-the-egg/1/ (Voting Period) My argument centers around the chicken and the egg. I am new at debating and hope that i will be able to apply some useful knowledge. I will first define: Chicken: a domestic fowl bred for flesh or eggs Egg: animal reproductive body consisting of an ovum or embryo together with nutritive and protective envelopes. Using the creationism approach: Genensis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" Therefore, the chicken came before the egg in the fact that God created animals before eggs. Because the animals came before egg, however the chicken originated it first came from an animal before the first egg. Please do not be too mean because this is my first time at this. http://www.debate.org/debates/the-chicken-came-before-the-egg/1/comments/ 2009-11-17T19:36:24-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/space-exploration-is-waste-of-money-and-time.../1/ (Voting Period) we need to explore the space because everyone probably understands that the world supplies are getting less and less every single day and population is growing as well... We need to explore the space and find more land, food, and more things that we need to survive. http://www.debate.org/debates/space-exploration-is-waste-of-money-and-time.../1/comments/ 2009-11-04T07:55:56-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-is-a-complete-fabrication-without-a-shred-of-evidence/1/ (Post Voting Period) I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and the audience for their time and participation. This debate is a challenge to the member DATCMOTO who asserted in this thread: http://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/1796/5/ That "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence". I would assume that DATCMOTO is a man of his word and means what he says. If this is the case, then I would like to challenge this assertion. I personally believe that this assertion is unjustified and the result of a lack of scientific understanding, and that DATCMOTO does not understand evolution enough in order to make such a bold statement. However, I assume that DATCMOTO has his own reasons for making such a huge leap of faith, so I shall let him explain to me why it is that evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence. The parameters of this debate are simple: Evolution shall refer to the standard scientifi http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-is-a-complete-fabrication-without-a-shred-of-evidence/1/comments/ 2009-07-07T08:59:59-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Modified-LD-Resolved-Public-health-concerns-justify-compulsory-immunization./1/ (Post Voting Period) You may provide your own definitions in Round 2. Please skip Round 1 by placing a single alphanumeric. Round 2 = Affirmative/Negative Constructive. Round 3 = Affirmative / Negative Rebuttals Round 4 = Crystalization Good luck and thank you for the challenge. http://www.debate.org/debates/Modified-LD-Resolved-Public-health-concerns-justify-compulsory-immunization./1/comments/ 2009-10-25T11:52:22-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-is-a-scientific-fact./1/ (Voting Period) First we must get a few things straight: Evolution is referred to in its most common and general sense which refers to macro evolution: the theory that all life originated from a single celled organism. Scientific Fact: The scientific method has been used to prove conclusively each aspect of the theory individually. Finally, the Con asserts that evolution as defined above is not by any measure a scientific fact. The fact is that only a few individual aspects of the theory have been scientifically proven. The majority of the social advancement of the theory was perpetrated by overzealous scientist and journalists that disregarded the necessity of scientific evidence. Specifically the lack of evidence suggesting that anything can change from one species to another. The Con begs the Pro to offer any such evidence. The scientific community's blind embrace of this unfounded theory has left the scientific community relying on more 'faith' than the most z http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-is-a-scientific-fact./1/comments/ 2009-10-16T19:29:40-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-will-exists./2/ (Voting Period) I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. He will be playing the Devil's Advocate, as we agree on the issue of free will. Free will: The capability to make a free choice. Free choice: A choice that is ultimately not influenced by any outside entity and completely unpredictable, but is also completely rational from the perspective of the entity making the choice. Rational: Proceeding or derived from reason or based on logical reasoning. (dictionary.com) Note that a being with free will does not have to make every choice a free choice, but must only be capable of making a free choice. That is, some or even most choices that a person makes may be predictable, but for a person to have free will the person must be capable of being truly unpredictable. *** Why Free Will Is Impossible 1. Every event is either caused by something or caused by nothing. (This is not arguable.) 2. If an event is caused by something: it is not free because it http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-will-exists./2/comments/ 2009-09-27T20:59:51-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Young-Earth-Creationism/1/ (Voting Period) Young Earth creationism is by far the most convoluted, ridiculous nonsense I've ever researched. Young earth creationism is the literal interpretation of the creation account from genesis, where god created the earth in 6 days. This worldview claims the earth is tens of thousands of years old rather than the billions of years estimated by scientists. This encompasses the idea that man walked with dinosaurs and that Noah's great flood is true. It also alleges that evolution has no evidence to support it and is a lie. I challenge any young earther to provide evidence that shows that the earth is young or debunks the modern science that proves the contrary. I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old. For those of you who think I'm referring to creationism as a whole, I am not. I am specifically talking about those who believe the earth and universe are NOT billions of years old. http://www.debate.org/debates/Young-Earth-Creationism/1/comments/ 2009-10-23T20:59:22-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-universe-must-have-had-a-definite-starting-point-in-time./1/ (Voting Period) The universe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe Definite starting point in time - Basically, this comes from the idea that if we had a timeline of the universe, time would start at the front of the timeline (definite starting point), with no events in the universe before it, and ending at the present day, with the future yet to come. If you have any questions about the definitions, or want to get anything at all about this debate clarified, please ask me in the comments. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Good luck. NOTE: No accepting this debate if you have devious intents in mind as to what your arguments will be. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-universe-must-have-had-a-definite-starting-point-in-time./1/comments/ 2009-09-24T19:08:14-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/It-morally-acceptable-to-experiment-on-animals-for-human-purposes/1/ (Post Voting Period) It is morally acceptable to experiment on non-domesticated animals for human purposes. Contention I: Humans have "dominion" over animals. IA: Humans have dominion over animals with a right to exploit them. Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. IB: Humans have always eaten/exploited animals; it has evolved into our DNA. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights http://www.debate.org/debates/It-morally-acceptable-to-experiment-on-animals-for-human-purposes/1/comments/ 2009-10-13T22:31:15-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/1/ (Voting Period) Global Warming (or climate change in the hot way) is the thing. It is a win or lose election debate topic. It is also very contested in the public field (media). The IPCC states that it exists and that it is human induced. State intervention is often motivated by climate change concerns. However there are many scientists, people and companies that contest climate change or human induced climate change. They have interesting arguments. I believe that they are mistaken. I define human global warming as the abnormal and significant increase of mean global temperatures caused (in part) by human activity. I expect to win if i can show that 1 climate change (in the sense of global warming) exists 2 it is caused in a significant degree by human activity I consider that my opponent wins if he/she is able to negate either of the above. I will affirm 3 arguments to sustain my position: science cvasi-consensus, observable events in the world around us, mental http://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/1/comments/ 2009-07-27T22:48:16-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/We-landed-on-the-moon./1/ (Voting Period) In this debate, I will be putting forth the arguments demonstrating that U.S. astronauts have indeed landed on the moon, specifically with regards to the Apollo missions that took place from 1969 to 1972. I know there is a considerable amount of support for so-called "moon hoaxers" on the internet, and am curious as to whether similar sentiments exist on debate.org. If so, I am excited to engage in a debate with an individual of said opinion. It has come to my attention that certain individuals find it entertaining to tear apart the purpose of a debate by focusing on semantics. To deter this strategy, I'll have everything simply defined. "Moon" = The Earth's only natural satellite. "We" = Astronauts hired through NASA and representing the pursuits of the U.S. in space. "Landed" = Touched down upon, set foot upon, and successfully communicated messages from the surface of the destination. I suspect that it will not take me long to provide compelling http://www.debate.org/debates/We-landed-on-the-moon./1/comments/ 2009-06-18T11:24:28-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/I-am-a-panda/1/ (Post Voting Period) I am a Panda, who often disguises himself as a teenaged male to help hide from the crushing popularity he would otherwise have from being discovered. Here is one of my old profile pictures: http://i0006.photobucket.com/albums/0006/findstuff22/Best%20Images/Animals/panda22.jpg I challenge you, my friend, because your name was my first choice, and I am disgruntled at the fact that I am the actual panda. http://www.debate.org/debates/I-am-a-panda/1/comments/ 2009-09-01T11:22:28-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Creation-vs.-Evolution-is-Evolution-Science/1/ (Voting Period) Many evolutionists believe that, while evolution is a proven fact, creationism is merely religion dressed up as science. My personal opinion is that neither is science: both require faith to believe. I happen to believe that God created the universe in six literal days, that there was a worldwide Flood that destroyed the ancient world (there are over 200 flood legends that are extremely similar to the one in the Bible.), and that God still watches over us today. In short, I believe "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the earth." This is obviously not science. Atheistic Evolutionists believe that a small dot (singularity) contained all of the matter in the universe (some believe that the dot contained time and space as well.). That dot suddenly grew hot, started spinning, then exploded. This is called the Big Bang. They all believe in abiogenesis, which is life arising from non-life, and believe that major changes took place slowly over millions of yea http://www.debate.org/debates/Creation-vs.-Evolution-is-Evolution-Science/1/comments/ 2009-07-09T20:11:54-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-a-5th-dimension/1/ (Post Voting Period) There is no 5th dimension. I will continue my argument after my opponent's response. http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-a-5th-dimension/1/comments/ 2009-04-18T14:34:26-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Disability-checks-and-welfare-checks-go-against-the-concept-of-natural-selection./1/ (Post Voting Period) To start with, some definitions: disability check - a welfare check sent to the parents of a child who is born with a disability welfare - aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare natural selection - a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20selection My contention is that for natural selection to work, those who are better-suited to their environment have a higher chance of succeeding than those who don't. With disability checks, the chance of anyone being born with a disability surviving increases, when natural selection requires them to have a lower chance of survival. Welfare checks are sent out to those who are failing in their environment http://www.debate.org/debates/Disability-checks-and-welfare-checks-go-against-the-concept-of-natural-selection./1/comments/ 2009-04-26T14:02:20-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Time-Travel-Into-the-Past-Might-Be-Possible-Not-Requiring-the-Help-of-God/1/ (Post Voting Period) I thank mongeese for accepting my debate, if he so chooses to do so. Time travel backwards is impossible. It will never be done. Things that already occurred were not recorded, and this data is lost forever. Besides God, nobody knows or ever will know what the center of the earth exactly looked like millions of years ago. I will further this argument after my opponent responds. The burden of proof falls on who ever it is making the statement. http://www.debate.org/debates/Time-Travel-Into-the-Past-Might-Be-Possible-Not-Requiring-the-Help-of-God/1/comments/ 2009-04-24T21:13:45-08:00