http://www.debate.com/rss/debates/Science.xml This RSS feed lists the newest debates in the Science category on Debate.com. en-us 2008-07-20T00:34:49-08:00 2008-07-20T00:34:49-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Resolved-Intelligent-Design-is-not-a-scientific-theory./1/ I affirm that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. [Definitions] Intelligent Design- Is the assertion that the universe and its features are explained by design by an omnipotent power (such as a god). Scientific Theory- A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. [Burdens] Affirmative- Show that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Negative- Show that Intelligent design is a scientific theory. I'll let my opponent make the first move. http://www.debate.com/debates/Resolved-Intelligent-Design-is-not-a-scientific-theory./1/comments/ 2008-07-19T20:00:41-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/technology-can-avert-global-warming/1/ we are in a modernized world nowadays.. we can do anything by means of technology.. if we can create gadgets to satisfy our wants.. why cant we create something which will help our environment, a much important thing, survive? http://www.debate.com/debates/technology-can-avert-global-warming/1/comments/ 2008-07-18T23:22:56-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Global-warming-not-an-issue-in-the-Philippines/1/ Global warming is definitely a BIG issue in the Philippines. it is evident already..strong storms due to climate changes, too much heat which causes illness, destruction of the environment and many more... we may not be affected directly but as far as health and weather is concerned... we are one of those who should consider that global warming is a big issue in the Philippines. http://www.debate.com/debates/Global-warming-not-an-issue-in-the-Philippines/1/comments/ 2008-07-17T23:59:56-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/R-Public-health-concerns-justify-government-violation-of-pharmaceutical-patents./1/ I affirm the resolution "Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents". I offer the following definitions: Pharmaceutical patent- a patent granted by the government referring to either pharmaceutical drugs or the related medical technology Government violation of pharmaceutical patents- government action whereby patents are infringed upon or revoked My value is Justice. We must use this value because the resolution clearly asks whether something is justified, that is to say, whether it is just. My criterion is Maximization of Life. We use this criterion because life all rights or any parts of life are irrelevant without it. Therefore Justice is impossible without it. Contention One: Government violation of pharmaceutical patents makes life-saving drugs more accessible to people. The price of drugs is as high as the companies set it for their own profit. If one company is the sole owner of a patent, then it has the ability to charge whatever price http://www.debate.com/debates/R-Public-health-concerns-justify-government-violation-of-pharmaceutical-patents./1/comments/ 2008-07-16T09:22:08-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Can-debate-be-the-subject-of-research-in-the-area-of-military-science/1/ I don't know someone in the world already research "Plan of a application of the military science to the debate." or this is my own idea. From a commonsense standpoint, debate is in the area of logic, psychology, rhetoric . But, Having learned more about debate, I think more and more the debate is a dispute by using logic. Also it can say "fight by using logic', and maybe it can say "war". In the historic times, many ideology appear with evidence and logic, fight each other in the debate, grow by the authorization from the people, and vanished or lost their power by losing their logical justice like countries in the historic times. In the situation, I think "Why not we can use military science to research debate?" For example, 'If you know your enemy and yourself, you can win every battle.', 'Only you can do something to prevent your lose. If you want to win the war, the mistake of opponent must be needed.' which are the famous principles in the book 'The art of war' by Sun Tzu, also http://www.debate.com/debates/Can-debate-be-the-subject-of-research-in-the-area-of-military-science/1/comments/ 2008-07-17T18:00:49-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Genetically-Modifying-Human-Beings-is-Unethical./1/ I used to be very much against the idea of g-modifying humans. (from here on I will use g-modify as an abbreviation for genetically modify) I will admit that it's a hard notion to swallow but now I am convinced that it is something we should pursue. To clarify I am arguing against the claim that g-modification is unethical and only that. I do not need to prove in anyway that it is actually ethical as this would be difficult since I don't believe in objective morality. First I will define: (a) "Genetically Modifying" as changing the genetic structure of human beings to improve their lives, liveliness, and survival ability. (b) "Unethical" as what is considered morally wrong. I would love to begin this debate by refuting a series of arguments. I may not be able to cover all of them in this round b/c of the character restriction but I will try. They are as follows below. G-modification is unethical b/c: 1.) The Argument that it is Unnatural. – Claims that nature intended for http://www.debate.com/debates/Genetically-Modifying-Human-Beings-is-Unethical./1/comments/ 2008-07-11T06:00:21-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Time-travel-could-not-be-possible-cause-of-the-Grandfather-paradox-among-other-problems./1/ One that travels back in time runs the risk of destroying their own existence which causes in turn them not destroying their own existence. I simply cannot believe this is possible since accepting time travel will in turn mean accepting something like the grandfather paradox can happen. http://www.debate.com/debates/Time-travel-could-not-be-possible-cause-of-the-Grandfather-paradox-among-other-problems./1/comments/ 2008-07-02T07:39:12-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/When-a-tree-falls-in-a-lonely-forest-and-nothing-is-near-by-to-hear-it-it-still-makes-a-sound./1/ The idea that a tree falling and making a noise without their being any way to prove this event happened is purely speculative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls http://www.debate.com/debates/When-a-tree-falls-in-a-lonely-forest-and-nothing-is-near-by-to-hear-it-it-still-makes-a-sound./1/comments/ 2008-07-01T03:57:48-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/There-is-no-anthropomorphic-global-warming/1/ Global warming has occurred in the past hundred years. This warming occurred mostly in the first half of the 20th century, counter to the period when there was more co2. Correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures are higher than co2 and temperature. http://www.debate.com/debates/There-is-no-anthropomorphic-global-warming/1/comments/ 2008-07-01T19:19:16-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/ An atheist does not need to believe that something came from nothing. Character Limits...................... http://www.debate.com/debates/An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/comments/ 2008-06-29T22:43:10-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/The-whole-world-should-switch-to-the-metric-system./1/ Let me first get some definitions out of the way. The whole world- Well, to be honest I am mainly referring to the United States, however to be fair I included the other two countries that don't have the metric system (Liberia and Myanmar). Metric System- This is the metric system of measurements, with meter, centimeter, kilometer, newton, etc... This may also be referred to as SI units, which stands for Systeme Internationale (French for 'International System). I contend that the world should be unified under a single system of measurements. This should occur for several clear and important reasons. Namely the ease at which calculations can occur without the need to use bothersome and tedious 'conversion factors' in equations as well as an inter-cultural linking of a single international system. Along with this we have the advantage that the SI system of measurements is based on solid principles of logic and reason, based on scientific principles and constants. While on the http://www.debate.com/debates/The-whole-world-should-switch-to-the-metric-system./1/comments/ 2008-07-10T20:57:42-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/One-plus-two-is-twelve./1/ I think anyone who supports this viewpoint needs to retake elementary school math. I don't mean to sound rude about it but it I think that it quite obvious that 1 + 2 = 3 and NOT 12. Allow me to demonstrate. Say you have 2 apples. Now imagine that I give you one more apple. How many apples do you have? Three apples. There is no possible way that you could have 12 apples unless I somehow had the ability to create 10 additional applies out of thin air. Anyway, I think that example alone says enough about my viewpoint. I look forward to seeing how, if possible, anyone could disagree with me. http://www.debate.com/debates/One-plus-two-is-twelve./1/comments/ 2008-06-22T09:07:44-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/The-sky-is-blue./1/ I don't even need to go in detail about this one. If you look outside and look up into the sky, you will see what I mean. There is no possible way that the sky could be any other color than blue (except maybe at night when it is dark outside or white if you count the clouds). http://www.debate.com/debates/The-sky-is-blue./1/comments/ 2008-06-19T16:30:48-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Topic-X-25-CHARACTERS/1/ I challenge anyone to give the the name of "one" let alone a 100 scientist who will put their reputations on the line and state categorically that "global warming" is caused by man. I fully expect samantics will be the only rebuttal to this question in order to avoid answering the substance of the question. http://www.debate.com/debates/Topic-X-25-CHARACTERS/1/comments/ 2008-06-19T10:43:35-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/We-should-take-action-against-Global-Warming/1/ There is clear evidence that the world is warming. There is no reason to believe it won't continue warming. This will be disastrous for many people and other species in the world. Therefore it is hypocritical and unethical not to act against it. http://www.debate.com/debates/We-should-take-action-against-Global-Warming/1/comments/ 2008-06-17T08:45:03-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/70-people-in-science-class-do-well-and-study-at-school-or-is-not-the-case-and-why-is-this-true/1/ When I was at school I had various teachers who taught me science. I found some were awful teachers and some were really very good. I had Mr Osbourne, I had Mr Dobbin in my last years and I had a man who had an interesting speaking voice with a brown moustache and sounded slightly australian. I remember partly why I found science difficult with one of my teachers was that he wouldn't easily accomodate the students in so far as talking louder and being able to control the class. I also found the lessons could have been taught better. The information on the board was presented in blue marker on white board without any diagrams sometimes. Terrible writing aswell. The tutors I liked were the ones who made funny comments and did something practical that excited everyone - like the mad professor in TinTin with his mad moustache, spectacles and balding head who was short. I was always bored that I wasn't helped enough with the writing out of the practical so far as Evaluations and Conclusio http://www.debate.com/debates/70-people-in-science-class-do-well-and-study-at-school-or-is-not-the-case-and-why-is-this-true/1/comments/ 2008-06-15T18:03:31-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Wind-energy-is-the-best-available-energy-for-now-and-in-the-future./1/ Wind energy is the best available energy because it will never run out. All other energy's will either run out or are way to expensive to start up and keep running. Some other energy's are bad for the environment and will make the world a worse place than it is and will be with using fossil fuels. Also, some people are too busy with work and handling kids that they don't have time to try to make a difference in the world and change what energy sources we are using most frequently. http://www.debate.com/debates/Wind-energy-is-the-best-available-energy-for-now-and-in-the-future./1/comments/ 2008-06-19T14:32:19-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Stem-cell-research-If-you-re-going-to-base-your-vote-on-oppinion-don-t-bother-voting-./1/ I think stem cell research is a good thing and should continue. I will wait for my opponents before making my first argument. R1 will be declaring of your position. R2 will be for opening statements. R3 and R4 will be for rebuttals. R5 will be for concluding statements. I would like to thank my opponent and wish them good luck. -Kat http://www.debate.com/debates/Stem-cell-research-If-you-re-going-to-base-your-vote-on-oppinion-don-t-bother-voting-./1/comments/ 2008-06-21T10:00:36-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Politicians-and-Environmentalists-who-say-hydrogen-will-be-a-cost-effective-fuel-source-are-lying./1/ It is a fact that Hydrogen will not be a cost effective alternative to gasoline to power cars and trucks for at least 50 to 100 years. Politicians like Arnold Swartchenegger are wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on something that is a complete boondoggle and a waste of time. I provide the sources below to explain in detail how hydrogen is made and stored along with all of the limitations that go with hydrogen. I have but one rule in this debate if you accept. You can not dismiss these sources using politics or some other reason that has nothing to do with the substance of the information. I will accept any source from anywhere, I will use the scientific method to the best of my ability and compare your sources to mine and explain in my own words why I believe your sources, if any, are flawed if they contradict the information in my sources. http://www.energybulletin.net/4541.html http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2007/Hydrogen-Economic-Hole28mar07.htm http://www.dotynmr.com/PD http://www.debate.com/debates/Politicians-and-Environmentalists-who-say-hydrogen-will-be-a-cost-effective-fuel-source-are-lying./1/comments/ 2008-06-03T16:10:48-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Hydrogen-is-a-cost-efective-altrnative-fuel-source-NOT/1/ Hydrogen is a cost effective alternative fuel source, NOT! http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html http://www.debate.com/debates/Hydrogen-is-a-cost-efective-altrnative-fuel-source-NOT/1/comments/ 2008-06-03T07:25:01-08:00