http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&category=Science Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2009-11-07T09:19:16-08:00 2009-11-07T09:19:16-08:00 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/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/Extraterrestrial-Life-Must-Exist-in-an-Infinite-Universe/1/ (Debating Period) Please do not accept this debate if you are unwilling to agree that the universe is infinite, and that there is a single universe. Whether or not this is true, it will be considered as such for the purposes of this debate. This debate should be centered around logic, but sources may be cited if they are necessary to support your logic. My argument is that in an infinite universe, extraterrestrial life must exist. My logic is as follows: ---- -The universe is infinite, that is, there is infinite matter in the universe. -This means that there is an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of possibilities for what can exist on each planet. -Because there are infinite possibilities and infinite matter, all of these possibilities (that fall within the laws of reality) must exist somewhere in the universe. -Because life can exist within the known boundaries of reality, life must exist on countless planets besides our Earth. Indeed, there http://www.debate.org/debates/Extraterrestrial-Life-Must-Exist-in-an-Infinite-Universe/1/comments/ 2009-11-06T16:31:04-08:00 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/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/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/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/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 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Laws-of-Mathematics-are-Unchangeable/1/ (Post Voting Period) I'll start with a definition: Mathematics: the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics My argument is that as long as the symbols and functions of math do not have their meanings changes, the laws of mathematics are unchangeable, no matter what you try to prove. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Laws-of-Mathematics-are-Unchangeable/1/comments/ 2009-04-19T19:00:36-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Large-Hadron-Collider-LHC-is-a-worthwhile-project./1/ (Post Voting Period) Today, the LHC, which is located 100m underground on the French / Swiss border was fired up for the first time. For those who may be unfamiliar with the project, please be refer to the links (1; 2; 3) which can be found at the foot of this page. Even though this project represents one of the most important scientific experiments ever undertaken in the history of mankind, unbelievably, there are people that have criticised the programme. In addition to the usual religious zealots that have been denouncing science since the days of Galileo and beyond (4) we also have a pack of hysterical panic-merchants who are scared stiff that the device will create a mini black hole that will eventually swallow the earth. (5) However, the majority of the critics suggest that the project is a waste of money.(6) However, given the huge scientific and technological benefits that could potentially accrue from the LHC, I would suggest it's worth every last penny. (1 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Large-Hadron-Collider-LHC-is-a-worthwhile-project./1/comments/ 2008-09-17T07:46:43-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/ (Post Voting Period) I'm pretty bored so I was wondering to post a debate to see if anyone disagrees with this. Just to confirm the resolution is as follows: .999... = 1 Definitions .999... refers to .9 with recurring nines 1 refers to the real number, 1 = means is exactly equal to .999... is exactly equal to one I'll let my opponent start. http://www.debate.org/debates/.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/comments/ 2008-09-15T13:42:13-08:00