The Instigator
Keplor
Pro (for)
The Contender
anc2006
Con (against)

The egg came first.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Keplor has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2020 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 413 times Debate No: 123961
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

Keplor

Pro

I know that I am not the first to ask this segregating and controversial question, But in this debate, I plan to settle this rational inquiry once and for all. When it comes right down to it, I believe this argument to be more semantic than historical, Yet brings to light some of the deepest philosophical questions human kind has yet to ask. Obviously, It's the egg. I'd like to see what kind of eggs-planation anyone could possibly muster up to assert something so egg-gregious as to believe otherwise, So I'll let con start. Let the debate begin.
anc2006

Con

Hello fellow JOJO fan.

I am here to argue that the chicken came first.

The egg is not there in the first place, Without a chicken being laid on it. Give me something that you are SURE that laid an egg that mutated into a chicken.

Now this ancient chicken, How did it form? Through mutations. It is not a chicken until it is mutated. Through this, The chicken came first through mutations.
Debate Round No. 1
Keplor

Pro

Hello again,

You display a great lack of understanding of true philosophy such as the pressing topic of this debate. Let me lay this out for you. If the debate alone was "What came first the chicken or the egg", Obviously there are dinosaur eggs, So case closed. However, This is not all that the debate entails. The question we are truly try to get to the heart of is "What came first the chicken or the chicken egg". Therefore, We must define "chicken egg". You seem to have defined this term as "an egg laid by a chicken". This is fine, But I would disagree, And define a "chicken egg" as "an egg which contains a chicken".

By the understanding of process of natural selection and using this definition, You surely would agree that the egg must have came first. The most common ancestor of the chicken (but not a chicken) lays an egg with a slight mutation which makes it what we call a chicken. By my definition and given this scenario which we know has occurred, The egg did indeed come first. You're stating that "Through this, The chicken came first through mutations. " is thereby completely false.
anc2006

Con

Have you see my comments way down there? You said what? The egg came first. Not that the chicken came after the egg. You gave me choices to pick what objects to pick. You wanna play semantics? Great, What about the universe? What kind of egg are you talking about? It is proven that nothingness came before every big bang, So if you argued the Universe egg, Which you claimed to be your trap, Then I would say your trap is merely an atom inside mine. What about nothingness, The emptiness? Keep in mind "emptiness" is defined, So I could use it. You have clearly fallen into my trap, And yes, There are deeper ones.

I could define something as "the object that was defined before the egg existed". What was it? No clue, But can it exist? Yes, Possibly in another dimension where anything can be created and negated. There was a theoretical "the box", Infinite dimensions, Containing anything possible. This is as theoretical as your egg before the existence of our universe.

As I saw your new comment, You said that this debate is meant to be semantic instead of historic. So there we go.

Also you failed to define what "egg" it is in the title. So if I compare the box to your Whole-foods-market-bought egg, I win. You lose. You did not define anything objective, So I did not disobey you in any way possible.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Anyway. I googled the family tree of birds/chicken. It seems they come from the Theropods, (dino). . Today we still have crocks. They make soft shell eggs. . . Not a good idea if you lay on top of them. . .
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
You can not draw that line.
Posted by Keplor 1 year ago
Keplor
We have to draw the line of chicken somewhere. When a mother pseudo-chicken has a baby with a slight genetic mutation to make it just fit the parameters of chicken, Then that is the first chicken. The egg that the pseudo-chicken lays is therefore the first "chicken egg" by one definition of the term, And therefore the egg came first. This only works if you define a "chicken egg" as an egg containing a chicken and not and egg laid by a chicken.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
They evolved simultaneous. There is no "first" of any species. . . . Any living creature is a first and only and last.
Posted by Keplor 1 year ago
Keplor
GG friend, I'll see you around.
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
anc2006
In this debate, It will end in a tie. Since no one can define what an egg truly is. However, GG. Nice one. Never had a good crack of laughs in a few months. Almost choked on a fictional egg.
Posted by Keplor 1 year ago
Keplor
It's funny how you don't see the absolute buffoonery of your argument, As all I would have to do is be really specific and you lose and are stupid. If there is no way to communicate this concept with words in a way that you couldn't just make it someones name, I could invent an entirely knew method of communication and you would have to accept my definition or you're debating against a straw man. You thought that you collapsed my house of cards, However, That was not a house of cards, It was an egg for my omelet which you merely cracked for me. Thank you for your kindness, Your unwilling and unknowing kindness.
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
anc2006
I can interpret this definition of the hell an egg as a person's name, That is if I get a girl and we have a child and his name is "Egg the first thing before anything no matter what forever". Now if there is the universe before he existed, I still win. And the worst part is what? I used your own logic to make your own logic collapse.
Posted by Keplor 1 year ago
Keplor
Semantic and pedantic are not the same thing you egg. In fact, Semantics is about the meaning of logical propositions and not about the exact words typed to be twisted into what you believe to be a trap. Even if I concede your argument, I never defined "egg" so I could just define it as "the first thing before anything no matter what forever" and you immediately fall into my largest trap yet revealed.
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
anc2006
This is a philosophical question, Not a biological question. You conceded to that, Right?
This debate has 0 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.