The Instigator
Justsomeguylol
Pro (for)
The Contender
Akhenaten
Con (against)

Things are not on fire, Fire is on things

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for Akhenaten to post argument for round #3. If you are Akhenaten, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
02days22hours14minutes42seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2020 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 hour ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 113 times Debate No: 125603
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Justsomeguylol

Pro

as the title says. . .
Things are not on fire, Fire is ON THINGS
Akhenaten

Con

The word 'fire' includes all parts of a combustible material. If the flame occurs outside the combustible material it is irrelevant. Note - There are two parts of a fire - (a) the combustible material (a) the resultant flame - Both parts (a) and (b) constitute a 'fire'. Note - The flame would not exist without the combustible material. Therefore, Logic dictates that they both required and are mutually inclusive.
Debate Round No. 1
Justsomeguylol

Pro

Wait but what I'm saying is, Is that if a fire is outside of the thing that is on fire then therefore does that not mean that It's on fire, But rather the fire is on the thing?

Also when you use your eye balls you can obviously see that the flame is not below the material that is on fire, But is rather OUTSIDE OF THE MATERIAL.

And when I am trying to say is, Is say I pour oil into the ocean and light it up therefore the fire is on the oil and not on the ocean.

What you're saying is right, But it, Is not saying that I am wrong. I'm right, And you are also right. But. . . But the flame is never on the bottom of the combustible material, It is on top of the combustible material.
Akhenaten

Con

If you start a fire in outer space the flame will be all around the flammable material. Thus, I have defined one example which is an exception to your rule. Thus, According to the principles of scientific investigation; - it only takes one exception to disprove a rule. Therefore, Your rule has been adequately disproved.
Debate Round No. 2
Justsomeguylol

Pro

Starting a fire in space is impossible because their is no oxygen in space.

Let's say even if you set a ball on fire in space, And the flame is all around the ball it is still on top of the ball.

Therefore you have not found an exception to my rule.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Justsomeguylol 23 hours ago
Justsomeguylol
Damn I just checked your profile 100 debates or so, And no wins?
Posted by Akhenaten 1 day ago
Akhenaten
Just as I thought. A little frightened puzzsy cat. Lol
Posted by Justsomeguylol 1 day ago
Justsomeguylol
i admit defeat
Posted by Justsomeguylol 1 day ago
Justsomeguylol
Holy crap someone actually took this debate seriously
Posted by Hezikiah 2 days ago
Hezikiah
You know that it would be untrue
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Girl, We couldn't get much higher

Come on baby, Light my fire
Come on baby, Light my fire
Try to set the night on fire
Posted by Leaning 2 days ago
Leaning
it's a funny meme.
Posted by Justsomeguylol 2 days ago
Justsomeguylol
I'm big brain
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.