Instigator / Pro
Points: 6

If humans had cell walls, would we be invincible or rigid?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Intelligence_06
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
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.
https://bit.ly/3gnkYVq
This is UNRATED
Two days of an argument, and 10000 characters per argument.
Round 1
Published:
I, PRO, will prove that if humans had cell walls they would be invincible

Well, invincible unless there is some poison/thing that alters the DNA of the cell to kill itself, like how it may happen in a bacteria. 

Plants have cell walls to protect them; if they accidentally get squished, they can still survive and resume at a normal process.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of rigid is "deficient in or devoid of flexibility". Essentially, this means something cannot move. It is obvious a plant cell can bend around, because it has to do that in order to receive sunlight from a source.

But what about an cell that has a moving mechanism? How about a cell that has a mechanism that can move itself around, instead of bending like a plant cell? That would be a bacteria cell. According to Ducksters.com, A bacteria cell has three layers of protection: cell membrane, cell wall (with periplasm), and a capsula.

But still, a bacteria can crawl through a human body and infect it. If it is a helpful bacteria, like that in yogurt, it can still crawl around and kill all the bad bacteria.

If humans have cell walls, we would be able to survive if an object hit the cell wall of our cells. Since we have a moving mechanism (legs) we would be able to move around, like a bacteria. We would be flexible since a plant can bend around if it needs to.



I look forward to CON's argument about how a human would be rigid if it had cell walls.

Published:
Thanks, TNBinc

Argument 1: Not invincible

Invincible is defined as:
incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued
So if you are invincible, literally nothing can kill you. Humans, in this context, would negate any weapons from working on the rigid cell walls if they are invincible. Walls are vulnerable against chainsaws. I am pretty sure that diamond-coated saw blades can cut a human in half. Even the cell wall is as hard as refined steel, remember that diamond-coated saw blades can cut diamonds, which are in fact harder than any cell wall and any steel ever. Unless human cell walls are as hard as diamonds or harder(Which would not since out of all materials of nature, this one is discovered to NOT used as any cell wall, using sawblades, humans with cell walls are not invincible.

Nuclear weapons, if you really bother, could destroy everything. The sheer impact and radiation would make this human with cell wall die. Humans with cell walls would look something like Groot, and not any being on earth would be invincible consider nuclear bombs can destroy basically everything.

There are a plethora of weapons that can penetrate the cell wall and kill the person. I won't mention all of them. They just exist and humans with cell walls aren't really invincible.

Argument 2: Rigid

What is the primary purpose of cell walls? To keep the cell rigid. To keep the structure. If humans have cells of cell walls, then no matter what, humans will be more rigid.

My opponent only cited part of the definition.
Definition of rigid

1adeficient in or devoid of flexibility rigid price controls a rigid bar of metal
bappearing stiff and unyielding his face rigid with pain
2ainflexibly set in opinion
bstrictly observed adheres to a rigid schedule
3firmly inflexible rather than lax or indulgent a rigid disciplinarian
4precise and accurate in procedure rigid control of the manufacturing process
5of an airship having the outer shape maintained by a fixed framework
So if something is just comparatively inflexible, it is rigid. Can a 60-year-old tax collector move? However, said 60-year-old would be rigid when compared to a 14-year-old gymnast consider the latter would be more flexible. Can you break wood? Yes, if you know the way of martial arts. However wood is rigid compared to playdough. If something is perceived as inflexible, it is rigid. Humans with cell walls, which are meant to make humans more rigid if applied, would be more rigid than normal humans without considering the cell wall's main occupation within the unit.

Conclusions:
  • Humans with cell walls can still be killed with radiation, nuclear bombs, and even diamond chainsaws, making it not invincible.
  • Humans with cell walls clearly are more rigid than before and they are rigid considering the cell wall's job is to make cells rigid. If I prove that said humans are comparatively and relatively rigid I proved my point, and there is no need to argue "Completely rigid, immovable".

I rest my case. Vote CON.

Round 2
Published:
Thanks for your argument, Intelligence_06.


Rebuttals

Intelligence_06 says
Humans with cell walls can still be killed with radiation, nuclear bombs, and even diamond chainsaws, making it not invincible.

Let me re-clarify one of my points I said from round 1: (note I underlined what I am going to reinforce) 
Well, invincible unless there is some poison/thing that alters the DNA of the cell to kill itself, like how it may happen in a bacteria. 
From page 4 of this link, it shows that radiation impacts the DNA. This is known as a "mutation". Plus, radiation does not have to penetrate the cell wall to impact the DNA. 

Nuclear bombs use radiation.

A cell is too small to be cut by a diamond chainsaw. A diamond chainsaw would have to go in between two cell walls to cut, because a single cell is too small. So there, a cell wall does not get penetrated.

A cell is still active for some time after the diamond chainsaw cuts a human in half. There is not much transport of oxygen and water, so the cell dies in ~3 minutes because of lack of oxygen transport. While it is true that cells by their own can transport oxygen, a human has organs instead of organelles, which "take away" the job from a cell to transport oxygen.

These are noticeably different than just penetrating the cell wall, making it "invincible" (to a cell level).

Intelligence_06 says 
However, said 60-year-old would be rigid when compared to a 14-year-old gymnast consider the latter would be more flexible.
While that statement is noticeably true, this is relative rigidness. The question doesn't really talk about relative rigidness, it says "rigid", meaning inflexible.

Intelligence_06 says
cell wall's job is to make cells rigid.

That is not entirely true. According to Nature.com
The cell wall surrounds the plasma membrane of plant cells and provides tensile strength and protection against mechanical and osmotic stress.
This means it provides more strength and protection.

I rest my case.

I look forward to your argument, Intelligence_06.
Published:
Rebuttals:

Let me re-clarify one of my points I said from round 1: (note I underlined what I am going to reinforce) 
Well, invincible unless there is some poison/thing that alters the DNA of the cell to kill itself, like how it may happen in a bacteria. 
From page 4 of this link, it shows that radiation impacts the DNA. This is known as a "mutation". Plus, radiation does not have to penetrate the cell wall to impact the DNA. 

Nuclear bombs use radiation.

A cell is too small to be cut by a diamond chainsaw. A diamond chainsaw would have to go in between two cell walls to cut, because a single cell is too small. So there, a cell wall does not get penetrated.
To what I perceive, he is trying to state that because a cell is so small a diamond cutter can't cut a plant cell, thus a diamond cutter does not work on to killing such humans. However, that argument is false as although a diamond cutter can't cut through individual cells, it can cut through human arms and legs, etc, to kill the human because as hard as a cell wall is, it cannot be as hard as a diamond or harder. Plus, if I just used it to cut through his neck to make his brain not connected with the rest of the body, he technically is dead and defeated, and that can be done by the average diamond cutter. Just by a single chainsaw, the person w/ plant cell walls can be defeated, how could he be invincible?

Plus, if radiation/poison can affect individual cells to make him dead and defeated, then said the subject would not be invincible either. My opponent literally concedes that he is not invincible especially with two species of weapons, such as nuclear and biohazard. Even if his skin is hard enough to be penetrated by nothing, I could technically still cover his nose and mouth make him die due to a lack of air. I could have him under a basement where no sunlight can shine through then give him nothing to eat and nothing to drink, he will still be defeated. Give me a reason that a cell wall man would not be defeated no matter what or concede.

A cell is still active for some time after the diamond chainsaw cuts a human in half. There is not much transport of oxygen and water, so the cell dies in ~3 minutes because of lack of oxygen transport. While it is true that cells by their own can transport oxygen, a human has organs instead of organelles, which "take away" the job from a cell to transport oxygen.

These are noticeably different than just penetrating the cell wall, making it "invincible" (to a cell level).
Say it again: What I am trying to say is to penetrate the HUMAN, not individual cells. If I am cutting him to shreds on a human level, not a cellular level, then he is still not invincible. A diamond cutter can cut a human nonetheless.

Intelligence_06 says 
However, said 60-year-old would be rigid when compared to a 14-year-old gymnast consider the latter would be more flexible.
While that statement is noticeably true, this is relative rigidness. The question doesn't really talk about relative rigidness, it says "rigid", meaning inflexible.
Then it is impossible to let anything be "rigid" I guess. Everything is flexible more or less, and less flexible is more rigid. It is everything comparatively. I am more rigid than a gymnast. That statement is true. With its practical usage, anything comparatively less flexible can be used "rigid" upon.

Intelligence_06 says
cell wall's job is to make cells rigid.

That is not entirely true. According to Nature.com
The cell wall surrounds the plasma membrane of plant cells and provides tensile strength and protection against mechanical and osmotic stress.
This means it provides more strength and protection.
While that may be true, it doesn't negate the fact that cell walls make cells MORE RIGID. 

If humans have cell walls, humans will be very stiff and rigid. Animal cells(humans are animals, yes) do not have cell walls because they need to be flexible and cell walls do the opposite of that: more rigid. You don't see plants just literally maneuvering around the town. Humans will be so stiff they are immovable if they had cell walls all the way through. That will make them rigid simply. Compared to normal humans, this hypothetical individual would be rigid compared to the norm because it is what we all use. If we touch clay, it is not rigid. If we tough metal, it is rigid. Of what human senses are, said being would be rigid.

Conclusions:
  • Humans with cell walls are still killable, hence not invincible.
  • Humans are rigid if they had cell walls.
  • "Rigid" can be used comparatively especially compared to the norm. If not, then nothing can be rigid. Said being would be, compared to the norm of humans, rigid.

Round 3
Published:
Thanks for your argument.

Intelligence_06 says
To what I perceive, he is trying to state that because a cell is so small a diamond cutter can't cut a plant cell, thus a diamond cutter does not work on to killing such humans. However, that argument is false as although a diamond cutter can't cut through individual cells, it can cut through human arms and legs, etc, to kill the human because as hard as a cell wall is, it cannot be as hard as a diamond or harder. Plus, if I just used it to cut through his neck to make his brain not connected with the rest of the body, he technically is dead and defeated, and that can be done by the average diamond cutter. Just by a single chainsaw, the person w/ plant cell walls can be defeated, how could he be invincible?
That is true.

Although a human may not be invincible, a cell can still survive for some time since it has technically a brain (nucleus).

Defining a person "dead" is vague: although a human as a whole is not functioning, human cells can survive on their own until there is no energy (ATP) left. ATP is produced by glucose with C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6 O2 = 6 H2O + 6 CO2 + 38 ATP. So essentially, it can survive for some time until it realizes there is no glucose and then it will die. By this equation, cells produce their own water (this is the same reason we can go three days without food but only three minutes without oxygen). 

Unless of course, the person dies on a mountain of sugar (lol :) )

Intelligence_06 says
Plus, if radiation/poison can affect individual cells to make him dead and defeated, then said the subject would not be invincible either. My opponent literally concedes that he is not invincible especially with two species of weapons, such as nuclear and biohazard. Even if his skin is hard enough to be penetrated by nothing, I could technically still cover his nose and mouth make him die due to a lack of air. I could have him under a basement where no sunlight can shine through then give him nothing to eat and nothing to drink, he will still be defeated. Give me a reason that a cell wall man would not be defeated no matter what or concede.
That's true

However, I stated this in my round 1 where I said the position I will take.

I, PRO, will prove that if humans had cell walls they would be invincible

Well, invincible unless there is some poison/thing that alters the DNA of the cell to kill itself, like how it may happen in a bacteria. 
This is said in my statement.


Intelligence_06 says
If humans have cell walls, humans will be very stiff and rigid
How? Plants have cell walls, yet they can bend at an angle to receive sunlight. For example,:

I can bend the leaves of a plant, and they are made of cell walls. 

I can bend a piece of grass and it will bend 

I can bend a piece of lettuce and it will bend

I can bend a piece of a tomato plant and it will bend. (a tomato fruit will bend when it is cut. And yes, the cells will still be living then, else the tomato will be nothing.

Intelligence_06 says
You don't see plants just literally maneuvering around the town
They don't have movable legs, that's why. 

Intelligence_06 says
 If we tough metal, it is rigid.
No, it is not. 

Rigid means something is inflexible.

I can bend a spoon and it will bend

I can bend tin solder and it will bend

I can bend the copper found in circuits and it will bend

I can bend a charging cable and it will bend (the inside is made of metal)

Conclusions from argument

  • A human, when killed, still has cells that will survive for some time, making them partially invincible.
  • Humans are not rigid if they had cell walls due to the fact that plants are bendable even though they have cell walls.
  • We defined rigid meaning unable to move and inflexible; humans and metal are not rigid while something like concrete and glass are.
Anyway, I am happy I got to debate with you. It has been a pleasure. I look forward to see how you will close off your argument.

I rest my case.

End of argument.
Published:
Rebuttals
That is true.

Although a human may not be invincible, a cell can still survive for some time since it has technically a brain (nucleus).

Defining a person "dead" is vague: although a human as a whole is not functioning, human cells can survive on their own until there is no energy (ATP) left. ATP is produced by glucose with C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6 O2 = 6 H2O + 6 CO2 + 38 ATP. So essentially, it can survive for some time until it realizes there is no glucose and then it will die. By this equation, cells produce their own water (this is the same reason we can go three days without food but only three minutes without oxygen). 

Unless of course, the person dies on a mountain of sugar (lol :) )
My opponent conceded that a human, even with plant-cell like cell walls, will not be invincible. Remember, he needs to prove that such a person is undefeatable and unkillable no matter the scenario, and he has shown at least one case when he is to be defeated.

That's true

However, I stated this in my round 1 where I said the position I will take.

I, PRO, will prove that if humans had cell walls they would be invincible

Well, invincible unless there is some poison/thing that alters the DNA of the cell to kill itself, like how it may happen in a bacteria. 
This is said in my statement.
Moving the goalpost. If my opponent has already given a case in which he is NOT invincible, then he loses immediately. He did not put that in the description, so no matter what, he changed definition early in the actual debate. Suggestion: Always put the definitions in the descriptions. Since he has disproven himself that humans with cell walls will not be actually invincible, the only thing I need to do is to prove that such a form of humans will also be rigid.

Intelligence_06 says
If humans have cell walls, humans will be very stiff and rigid
How? Plants have cell walls, yet they can bend at an angle to receive sunlight. For example,:
I can bend the leaves of a plant, and they are made of cell walls. 
I can bend a piece of grass and it will bend 
I can bend a piece of lettuce and it will bend
I can bend a piece of a tomato plant and it will bend. (a tomato fruit will bend when it is cut. And yes, the cells will still be living then, else the tomato will be nothing.
However, due to there is a literal WALL between cells, it would still make such organisms more rigid than they are without them. It seems like my opponent did not pick on that point at all that humans will be more rigid when there are cell walls throughout, most likely because it is science and it is true.

My opponent's definition of "rigid" is this:
deficient in or devoid of flexibility
What is the definition of deficient?
Definition of deficient

1lacking in some necessary quality or element
2not up to a normal standard or complement
Using definition 2, when a person is not as flexible as the average human, he could be considered rigid. Since cell walls simply make people more rigid than they originally were if implemented, a person with cell walls could be rigid by the very definition.

I have provided in the previous round that if humans have cell walls, humans would be rigid compared to normal due to their structural support unneeded for humans and other animals because such support would make every cell less flexible. Humans with plant-style cell walls would be deficient in flexibility, and it seems like my opponent agrees with it. You can peel a piece of a plant, but up to human skin standards, it is still rigid.

  • A human, when killed, still has cells that will survive for some time, making them partially invincible.
  • Humans are not rigid if they had cell walls due to the fact that plants are bendable even though they have cell walls.
  • We defined rigid meaning unable to move and inflexible; humans and metal are not rigid while something like concrete and glass are.
  • Even if there is a delay between the usage of weapons and the death of cells, said human will still die, which would make him NOT invincible.
  • Humans, if contains cell walls, will be deficient in flexibility, which in turn translates into that humans will be rigid. You'd still call your tax collector grandpa rigid if you have just spent time with the gymnastics practice group. Humans, because of the structure, will be less flexible, according to science.
  • Rigid has a comparative meaning, and when its flexibility is not up to the normal standards, it is rigid. Humans with cell walls will be rigid in the standards of regular humans.
  • I rest my case and voters, please vote CON.

Added:
--> @Intelligence_06
Looks like I may have not properly defined "alive"
oops
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Good point.
Nevertheless, if you just decapitate one's head while remaining their cells still complete, they are still dead.
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @TNBinc
Diamond blades can 100% cut through a cell wall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramicrotomy
#3
Added:
--> @Intelligence_06
Hey sometime later you want to debate (unrated) should colleges use admission tests such as the sat act? I'll take yes.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Intelligence_06
I didn't really understand how I lost because i said a human is invincible unless the DNA is changed but I said that in the first round, or the round where I show my statement
Thanks for debating with me, though.
Instigator
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
S&G tie
Conduct: tie