Science Debate Topics for Students — page 8

For

• Lets have no forfeites, trolling, or flaking. If we forfeit just make us say are information in the next argument. I want us to have a smooth debate.
• Well my opponent has not post 3 rounds which means that he should lose this debate and I win. He could not make any rebuttals, so I couldn't make clashes. Therefore I will tell you my 3 arguments.1. So my first argument is that it just takes a lot of time. For example lets see…

For

• (1) The bones are mineralized and therefore not suitable for carbon dating(1A) This tells me that you have not read the report. It clearly says that fractions of residual collagen were dated, in other words, the proteins of the main connective tissue. The bones were not…
• Thank you for accepting the challenge. I shall do point by point counter rebuttals.(1) The bones that are found are not the actual dinosaur bones and are minerals including Carbon that have replaced the bone over time. (1A) C-14 does not force it's way inside fossils and become…

For

• Insects are likely to become resistant to GM crops
• Labeling helps protect the legitimate place of GM foods.

For

• I would like to take the side of supporting embryonic stem cell research, due to the fact that it has the potential to cure or help people with degenerative diseases, should new discoveries arise as a result of the research. It should not be restricted based on the notion that…
• Again, my opponent has forfeited the last round, and has not argued against any of my points.

For

• Hello, Today I will tell you why the IQ number is a meaningless number and that intelligence is not marked by a person's IQ level.The first point I'm going to make is that the IQ test is outdated. IQ tests have been used for over 100 years in schools and back then they actually…
• You've won have you? Hahah no. You're just starting to get a little over yourself now and I haven't backed down from my original points at all. I still stand by them all. and I haven't admitted defeat and I won't. I will stand up to my beliefs and will not back down. You seem…

For

• This debate is about Intelligent Design and Evolution. I believe that intelligent design isn't science and an alternative theory to evolution. I'll let my opponent speak first.

For

• The reason that biologists must keep in mind that things are without design is because it is a last resort in science. God is an unnecessary addition to most theories - in almost every case, there is a simpler one that is secular.Regarding your claim that DNA is a precondition…
• On the point that "mutation" is vague: perhaps I should clarify.I am referring to any natural, inheritable genetic changes which occur, especially when replicating DNA/RNA.Following from this minor point, you state that after a beneficial mutation, it is likely that the next…

For

• Yes, indeed; There is a difference. However, the root word is "astro", meaning "relating to outer space". DO YO' RESEARCH, DAWG! Anyways, we will be in contact; Whenever we have disagreements, I'll be sure to instigate an argument, issuing YOU as opponent (Hopefully). I leave…
• Astronomy (Hence (Direct quote): "I have been, and currently am being, taught astromony"

For

• Your statement is good but sad to say you're wrong again. "PHYSICAL APPEARANCE"? Yes! Nature can change our physical appearance! Let me give you an example. An American, He has a white skin and he transfers to Philippines to go for a vacation. He keeps on swimming, Sun bathing…
• What you've said is right and at the same time it's also wrong. It's not all about the genes that really made us what we are now. Is there anyone who was born with a Criminal mind thinking? I don't think so, All of us was born neutral. It's the nature who influences us because…

For

• K thank You for Debating with me Lol, Over and OutTheAwesomeRuler

For

• Alright, I have bene postponing this debate for a long time, because you put a lot of pressure on me; Fairly distributed obligations. I was actually hard pressed the first time I read them, to even understand what you were saying, "1. The Science20 is genuine, well established…
• this article is stupid. If ESP was real, we would always be subject to ESP stimuli, so you cannot stipulate that there was no evidence of change when ESP stimuli was used, to suggests no ESP is present. this article should be used as critically acclaimed evidence that the…

For

• If you think about all the planets that are in the "Goldilocks zone" ( the zone around a star that makes it possible to hold liquid water, there are probably millions of them) around some of the stars in some galaxies, there is a possibility that there are other intelligent…
• If you have payed any attention to Cryptozoology: the study of creatures that no one knows if they are real or not (http://en.wikipedia.org...), then you can see that there is some proof that aliens do exist. Although it is not fact, aliens, or anything other that's falls into…

For

• HelloOooooOOOooo? Ff?
• lets say the begining of the universe was point "a" and today is point "b". please tell me how we can get from point a to point b if there was no point a. if there was no point a and there was only point b, point b was the begining of time. with an infinite amount of time, time…

For

• I do apologize for the delay, but please believe I did not forfeit, just a manner of time management. But what exactly is your view on my claim? What argument can you give on my assumption?
• This topic is self explanatory. Humans are beings of emotions of different vibrations in which can be tuned or un-tuned.

For

• In "the origin of species" Darwin wrote survival of the fittest twice and love ninety five times. Mamals ( as far as I know ) can't reproduce asexually so being the fastest, strongest, etc. means nothing if you can't spread those traits to your children. We make the mistake of…

For

• Ok apparntely my oppenent did not read my main headline i said NASA should be use LESS in america not taken completely away my oppenent is right we have found out more about the universe true but you see we find out so much about for example jupitar ok there is no life on…
• Hello I'm Freddie and I would like to say I think NASA should be lessed use in America because it takes billions of dollars to send one shuttle out in space and we don't really accomplish nothing big and so what is the point we have only sent a man to the moon a couple of times…

For

• I'd like to welcome my opponent to the debate and commend them for defending the decimal system- in my opinion, a tough job. I've read some very intelligent arguments on their part, and I'm glad to debate. I'd like to start by addressing some of their arguments. Argument…
• The duodecimal (or dozenal) system, or base twelve, is superior to decimal, or base ten, for a number of reasons. Ten has only 2 and 5 as non-trivial factors. Twelve has 2, 6, 3, and 4. Thus, elementary fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 2/3. 1/4, and 3/4 all have convenient…

For

• Point 1. Ghosts are/were in the form of humans and animals seen today and as far as we know ghosts have no organs so it would be impossible for them to evolve with the body over thousands of years. Point 2. If creatures evolved from the same cell and came to live in the same…
• Point 1. Living beings always needed certain organs to survive, and if any living being managed to evolve through thousands of years without them: it would be a miracle. Point 2. Ghosts have always been in the form of the living being they were in life and spirits cant evolve.…

For

• Thanks for accepting! This should be a nice change of pace. Antarctica is a better candidate for colonization than Mars because: Significantly lower 1. travel costs resupply costs equipment costs risk of death by: starvation dehydration irradiation lung deflation And you can…
• I will be arguing that the colonization of Mars is not something we should focus any serious effort on, and if colonization of uninhabited places is going to occur, Antarctica should instead be our target.

For

• I apologize for the misunderstanding; I meant that the theories of evolutionary biology are false.1. Evolution is just a theory.I and most Americans don't want to change our beliefs about the origins of life because of something thant's only a theory.2. The 2nd Law of…
• Round 2: Main argument (no rebuttal)Rules:No ad hominemNo straw manNo being offensiveAll terrorism comments will be irrelevantGood luck to my opponent.

For

• I'm sorry you don't like my usage of Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution. Maybe I should just say "the idea that all life descends from a common ancestor." I believe you understand what I mean; what's with the semantics? You say, "Darwin didn't even make a conjecture that there…
• I'm sorry you felt I was using "wrong definitions." Maybe I should have said neo-Darwinian evolution, although I do describe what I mean (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I'm sorry you do not seem to realize the imperative role mutations play in evolution. I clearly stated other…

For

• Evolution, in my own words, is the natural change and adaption in species that allows them to survive a changing environment. With the reusing of genes, evolution would not happen anymore. At least not in humans, but in animals (assuming they have not already been cloned), they…
• First of all, cloning humans would decrease genetic diversity throughout the world. By cloning, we are copying the same genes of one person and bringing it into the clone. And if cloning starts to become an everyday thing, then the genes of the clone will get passed on, etc.…

For

• I accept the challenge. From what I can understand, Pro contends that "earth derived" quantum evidence is the basis for popular cosmological models, and posits a new hypothesis instead. Unfortunately, it appears that what pro is positied appears to be pseudo-scientific babble,…
• I intend to keep my final response short, as there does not appear to be much to address. Con has again attempted to explain his theory, and continues to simply attempt to use woo. My opponent has failed to present his theory in any way that can be coherently understood, even…

For

• Many thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate. In answer to his suggestion that the LHC is unnecessary as there are already numerous other colliders, I reply that it will help prove or disprove scientific theories that existing colliders are not big or powerful enough…
• The odds are that my opponent is right that at some time in the future a massive asteroid with the potential to make the human species extinct will be on a collision course with the earth. But don't panic just yet! One of the objectives of the LHC is to discover the nature of…

For

• "A point cannot be infinitely far away. Infinity is not a quantity." Yes it is. Infinity divided by infinity is one. It is an unlimited quantity. It might be too complex to completely understand, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "Therefore, my opponent's mathematical…
• I am Pro (affirming) the statement that Time Travel is possible. I will present the reasoning why. Time is defined as the numerically induced events between point 'a' and point 'c' where 'a' is infinitely in the past and 'c' is infinitely in the future, and point 'b' is the now…

For

• That was not forfeit defense i did not see your argument until now i apologize. Getting right into it then, you said "I will refute it quickly; the oceans in the last 50 years, as shown in a paper by Science, have been measured in parts to have increased salinity. In other…
• Evolution is not a viable origin model. It has been shown incorrect many times but no one seems to notice. An excellent example is salt in the ocean we all know the ocean is getting progressively saltier. So if the earth is billions of years old then how do you explain the fact…

For

• Is sedimentary rock layers evidence for Evolution or Creationism? Please explain.
• I do not believe that there is any scientific proof for evolution, I would like Con to prove otherwise.

For

• I can only assume that you comy paste all your arguments because you get cut off before you get to your argument.You are avoiding the main question with useless knowledge which doesn't relate to this topic.!You mentioned that they asked "what the universe is expanding into".…
• Unfortunatly, the information you copy pasted from the website listed below, only included the finite and infinite universe and the part that you meant to copy didn't fit on this page due to character restriction. The argument was solely towards the idea of the expanding…

For

• Ok, then how about the Aerolite, black hole and other stars. The universe is very dangerous, how can you sure that the Earth can't be destroyed! All the thing in the world will be destroyed in one day, how can you sure that the Earth won't be destroyed? And, I've search the…
• The topic is the Earth can be destroyed. Not the Earth can be destroyed by human. So when the Sun become red giant. It will swallow the Earth. So the Earth can be destroyed by the Sun or other celestial bodies, not just human.

For

• Cloning can mean a lot of things not for only humans but the world where Endangered species are free to go with no risk of them to be completely Extinct. Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and then we could forever…
• What is a clone? Clones are organisms that are exact genetic copies.Every single bit of their DNA is Identical. On July 5, 1996 the very first Mammal was cloned.Dolly The Sheep.This is important because Imagine a world where this could lead to even bigger discoveries like Cures…

For

• We should all be pro space colonization, because it is going to eventually help us out with our population growth and convicts.

For

• Figuring out the resolution has been a major problem in this debate. I figured if I proposed a resolution, then Con, the instigator, would probably jump in and counter with a different one. That didn't happen. I said the resolution was "The law should allow genetic testing of…
• Con says, "As I stated before, the problem with screening is that it diagnoses and determines the fate of embryos based on their genetic structure. This is border line eugenics." Pro may reassert that screening is "borderline eugenics," but has thus far given no reason to…

For

• Con argues that since fossilization is a rare occurrence, that "gives reason for the "underepresented" Precambrian life. " This does not refute my argument. In making this statement, Con has to assume that the supposed "underpresented [sic]" Precambrian life actually existed!…
• Thanks to my opponent for a punctual response. Before I continue, I'd like to remind readers that I am not trying to prove that Evolution is false. What I am doing is showing how the following claim is not proven: "All extant life descended from a common organism via mutations…

For

• My opponent foreited.
• IntroductionMy opponent has violated conduct beyond belief. Not only that, his spelling is atrocious. To top it off, his rebuttals fall flat on their face as well. Support For Bohm Mechanics In The Scientific CommunityMy opponent just seems to be rambling here, and makes many…

For

• 1. Competition Competition is a good thing. It leads to progress and innovation. With government control of science, huge advantages are given to the government science programs. The government has already picked who is going to win. And with a government monopoly, it is almost…
• I will argue that scientific progress is better without government intervention. My opponent will argue that scientific progress is made better by government intervention.

For

• Evolution is based on many small coincidences filled in with assumptions. For example, where does the turtle come from? Scientists deduct that it evolved from some sort of amphibian. Then where is the fossil evidence. In 200 years, ever since Darwin proposed his theory, and…

For

• People are more influenced by nurture because of their relationships with others whatever they are, and who they react with affect their attitude or thoughts which lead to differences in their personality

For

• Secondly it is possible for the theory of evolution and Christianity to coexist. definitions I've included ad�ap�ta�tion;[ad-uhp-tey-shuhn] noun any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which…
• First off i would like to say what you said about God was completely irrelevant, and using my religion against me is ad hominem. Besides the fact, I have many sources stating we did evolve and we still are it's most likely true if not completely accepted in the science world.…

For

• Sure thing. We can continue when you want to. DO NOT VOTE. DO NOT VOTE.
• It's simple. I am saying Evolution is more true than Creationism. We can't know for sure that Evolution or Creationism are definitely true or false. What I'm saying is that Evolution has a higher chance of being true than Creationism. Here's a quote from your Round 1 acceptance…

For

• I simply chose that particular website as source because of the easily understandable presentation. If the taxonomy of humans is in question because of this, I could have sited any biology textbook that came to mind. The taxonomy of humans has been peer reviewed extensively and…
• After much deliberation, here is my opening argument. According to taxonomy, Humans are defined into the following categories: (http://members.cox.net...) Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primata Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: Homo sapiens All…

For

• Hi Burncastle, thanks very much again for your responses to my points. However, I was a little disappointed in your very weak rebuttal of my main argument. Picking and choosing premises and not following them through. I was going to just forfeit this debate, as I can see much…
• Hey Burncastle hope you are well. You made some good arguments and I am really surprised there were no biology quotes for me to get through. Again, I respect you for that. I'll thank you for your comments also, appreciated. Ok I'll rebut a few items, but I won't include your…

For

• I agree that there are minuscule gaps. But how much more evidence is really needed? We have found hundreds of fossils, linking our current species back to ape-like ancestors. These fossils have been found in locations that perfectly fit this theory. I don't think it's fair to…
• I will admit partial defeat here. My new focus is the denial of evolution. I'll accept that it may not be a proven scientific fact, due to certain gaps, but there is no denying that it is an extremely rational, practical and sound theory. It is similar to Hawking's realization…

For

• Although I give you props for researching and attempting an answer, your 4 differing definitions prove my point. You wrote "The fourth definition interestingly only uses the word knowledge and instead articulates observation and experimentation differently to the other three."…
• "The reason why very few people can dictionary-define science and don't care for the two methods is that you don't need to do that to know what it is or how it operates." You don't need to know what something is and how it operates in order to know how it should operate? You…

For

• I win.
• 1.Use logic2.First round acceptance.3.Second round opening.4.Third rebuttals.5.Closeing statements/rebuttals.Failure to comply with the above will result in full 7 points to opponent,Thanks,:)PRO VIOLATED THE RULES I WON THIS DEBATE. 7 points go to me.

For

• You haven't provided any evidence in support of your position. I cannot debate name calling, so I will say no more.
• First of all, Con was supposed to use round 2 to given opening arguments in favor of abiogenesis as agreed in round 1 and reiterated in my opening arguments in round 2. Instead, he presented a rebuttal instead of opening arguments. Second of all, Con seems to be confused…

For

• As you mentioned in round one, a meteorite may have come without life, but with the necessary chemicals. This would still mean that life formed on earth. Another theory scientists have come up with is exactly that! Meteorites carried the organic molecules, the heat and the…
• There is enough hydrogen and oxygen in the water and nitrogen from the geothermal vents in the bottom of the ocean to form life. Not only could life have formed undersea, the nucleotides needed to form RNA could have formed in the atmosphere, which had the necessary elements,…

For

• I thank my opposition for accepting this incredibly difficult topic, the debate now belongs to the voters and I will provide no additional sources. Guide to Voting:I will not advise voters on conduct, spelling or grammar. Original argument: this debate challenge was designed to…
• Far from being alarmists, scientists ground themselves in uncertainty because "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts" (Bertrand Russell). Politics and business reward leadership…

For

• My apologies for taking so long to reply. I have been lazy recently.From what I have read so far, my opponent hasn't given us any good reason against creation. My argument will be based on what makes the most logical sense. I will present my case and wait to see if my opponent…
• The only logical explantion for the origin of life is intelligent design. It is my duty to present the logical facts and expose the folly and delusion of atheism.

For

• First, I shall redefine some terms with some clearer sources:Evolution is best defined as the following: "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the…
• This debate is rather simple, and based off of a forum post. The burden of proof is shared. The first round is for acceptance, though my opponent can reasonably set forth some definitions if they wish or present their case for creationism. All sources and similar must go into…

For

• I guess so Josh. But theirs still other problems with time travel like if their is alternate realities, then which do you go back to if you travel foward in time after having changed history. Or If you introduce something from the future into the past and it in turn ends up…
• That's all assuming that the person reading this article believes in alternate realities. Now if you believe the mechanics of back to the future(lol) then you killing your grandfather will result in you disappearing from existence.