If humans had cell walls, would we be invincible or rigid?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Plants and bacteria have cell walls--an extra wall that protects them from being crushed. How would humans be if they had cell walls? Invincible, or rigid?
I, TNBinc (Pro), will take "invincible"
Con, Intelligence_06 will take "rigid"
Please refer to this to know what a cell wall is.
This is UNRATED
Two days of an argument, and 10000 characters per argument.
For a debate like this, unless the statements are qualified as absolutes, there needs to be some flexibility... That said this is pretty straight forward: Pro tries to prove that we would be more close to invincible than rigid, and con that we would be less invincible and more rigid.
Getting to the highlights...
Pro tries to argue that a chainsaw while still cutting us in half, would not directly damage our cells... This is halfway a concession, as we would be massively harmed. I care a lot less for points like nukes and suffocation points, as the resolution is not about true godlike immortality but merely being physically impervious.
Con argues we would be made comparatively rigid, using a very good example of teenagers vs middle aged people. Pro does try to argue that this does not count as truly rigid, and further that various metals can be bent so are not absolutely rigid... Nothing about being rigid actually calls for it to be absolute, from his or her own definition "deficient in or devoid of flexibility" key words "deficient in ... flexibility." So us having a hard time moving, even if having a plant like ability to slowly do it over hours and have the benefit of legs, is still pretty rigid.
Argument: Pro chose to prove invincibility, but then only defined rigid, which was Con's BoP. Pro acknowledged, however, in his r1 that cell wall "rigidity" did not imply complete inflexibility because even plants, having cell walls, can bend to sunlight. Pro the changed the conditions of the organism from a fully integrated human organism [many specialized cells] to discussion of a single-cell organism, thus altering his debate object, and, finally, failed in the attempt to rebut Con's argument against invincibility of radiation [mutation], nuclear war [physical destruction and radiation, or a diamond-tipped cutting tool. Con successfully argued lack of invincibility b the three items mentioned, plus successfully argued that a human with cell walls would be rigid while Pro failed to demonstrate otherwise. points to Con.
Sources: Pro's sources proven variable [such as allowing for bending in plants] and are not chosen to support an argument that a human is invincible with cell walls, whereas Con sources support the rigidity that even Pro admits still allows flexibility sufficient to bend.