Holiday Skirmish: orange-light vs AshleyD: "Oh Rudolph With Your Nose So Bright"

The topic for this debate is “As Rudolph's Nose Never Burns Out, We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever"

orange-light will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
AshleyD will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

When I first heard about the idea of Holiday Skirmishes I was really thrilled. So I am very proud and happy to take part in this fun debate. Before I would start to debate my case I would love to thank Semperfortis for setting this debate up. Since it is my very first debate in my whole life and I tortured my fellow fighters a lot before joining the debate forum I would love to thank them all very warmly for all the information they gave to me and for their patience. But most of all I have to thank AshleyD, my highly estimated opponent. It is a great honor for me and I really appreciated it that you jumped in to make this debate possible for me. Last but not least thank you to the readers and the judges, I hope you enjoy yourself as much as I do.
I would like to declare that English isn’t my mother tongue. So please forgive any mistake I might have made, I try my very best to handle the language as careful as it deserves it.

As Rudolph's Nose Never Burns Out, We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever

Everybody knows that Santa Claus lives at the North pole and that he travels with his sleigh all around the world to bring presents to good children on Christmas Eve and on Christmas morning.

This is a very hard job. Every woman and every man hasting trough our cities to catch up with appointments will confirm this. How much harder must it be for Santa to catch up with these much more important appointments to bring joy to the children of the world?
So you can imagine that he needs as much help as possible.

The most important helpers to make Christmas possible for Santa are the reindeers pulling the sleigh. Originally eight reindeers did this job.

Reindeers live in families like humans do it as well. One day Donner, one of the eight reindeers of Santa Claus becomes father of a young reindeer son. A son whom he calls Rudolph.

Very soon Donner Reindeer and his beloved wife realize that their son is special, he is different from all the other reindeers. Why is he different? He got a very shiny red nose. A red nose which is able to brightens darkness.

I will show that this nose is real throughout this debate.

Fact is that the nose of Rudolph Reindeer, son of Donner Reindeer, living in Reindeer Village far far north from any human civilization was detected by Santa Claus when he delivered one Christmas morning presents to Rudolph.

Santa had to struggle hard with weather phenomenons. Ice, snow, wind and heavy storms made a safe journey nearly impossible. Santa was threatening by accidents, children of the world lived in danger that Christmas might not happen. A situation, which was unbearable for a man with such high claims to his job like Santa Claus. By all means Christmas had to take place. No child on earth should be left disappointed.

That’s why Santa Claus asked Rudolph to become lead reindeer of his team and guide the Santa Company safe through all adversities ever since and rescued Christmas.

My opponent might say that Santa should have gone to a car repair shop and get some reflectors fixed at his sleigh. Those would have done the job pretty well. Technically speaking she is right. But reflectors aren’t suitable for the mystery of Santa. They are far too profane for a legendary man like Santa Claus.

And what would happen when a reflector is broken through his journey all around the world at non-imaginable speed? Christmas would be in danger again.

So Santa Claus needs a system which not only is unbreakable but also provides the mystery of his nature. A reindeer with a red and shiny nose – Rudolph.

Socratic question:
SQ 1:
Did it ever happen that Christmas had to be chancled?


Now AshleyD it is up to you

Thank you so much to Orange Light for engaging me in this light hearted 'Holiday Skirmish' debate. It's a nice change of pace and looks like it will be loads of fun. Many thanks to Semper as well for setting up this debate. Many thanks as well to the viewers and judges. Hope you enjoy!



Debate Topic: As Rudolph's Nose Never Burns Out, We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever.

A brief outline of what my position will present throughout this debate:

Post One: What's natural for Rudolph may not be beneficial for us humans.

My first post in this debate will consist of the scientific hypotheses that explain the biological, purely natural, and of course totally harmless causes of Rudolph's glowing nose. This is something my opponent mentions as proving throughout her case and it will be an issue where we definitely agree!

However, with artificial lighting, us humans aren't as lucky as our seasonal friends up at the North Pole. While Santa gets to bask in the natural, safe, and continual glow of his four-legged friend's luminescence, we'll briefly examine the dangers of energy efficient and long-lasting artificial light bulbs humans are subjected to and connect the hazards to the potentially future continual light bulbs of our synthetically-powered world.

Post Two: Thousands of jobs don't exist to produce Rudolph's nose, but they do with light bulbs.

In my next post, we'll be examining a subject recently talked about in the media as our economy faces an uncertain future: Job losses.

Since we will have already contrasted Rudolph's natural nose to the manufacturing of artificial light in this debate, we will inevitably be faced with problems of production decrease and subsequent employment loss if continual light bulbs become a reality. Santa's helpers are employed for the manufacturing of toys and only toys in order to bring cheer to Children across the world on Christmas morning. They are not assigned tasks to mass produce new noses for Rudolph. Yet further down south, we have thousands of people employed worldwide with families to support. These people are the light-bulb making work force who will definitely feel the blow once continual light bulbs become a reality.

I will present evidence how current trends are already negatively impacting the industry simply with longer-lasting light bulbs. It only stands to reason the problem would worsen if light bulbs were not only long-lasting, but 'eternal.'

Post Three: There is no 'Big Brother' except Santa at the North Pole. Us 'Southerners' aren't as fortunate.

While Rudolph and the elves live in harmony under the leadership of benevolent Jolly Old Saint Nick, laws are actually being passed in certain parts of the world to control which light bulb gets used in your home.

The battle of the standard incandescent vs. fluorescent has already begun. How much farther will things go if continual light bulbs are the thing of the future? Will the government be controlling our light bulb purchases in a 'green movement' to reduce the waste created by used and discarded disposable bulbs? In my third post we'll review some current events and speculate on what the future might hold if eternal bulbs become a reality.

Finally, I will close the debate with final rebuttals as well as a brief conclusion.



Answering the Socratic Question

Question: Did it ever happen that Christmas had to be canceled?

To my knowledge, Christmas has never been canceled on a wide scale since its holiday inception. And that's, of course, a good thing! Surely there are homes that have done without due to economic crunches but due to the fact Christmas should be more in our hearts than it is in our wallets, no, Christmas or the Christmas season has never been canceled as a whole.

It must be noted, however, that Christmas has been a tradition for centuries before our dear immortal Rudolph's birth in 1939 (1). As grateful as we are to him and his fearless leading of Santa's sleigh he now provides, Christmas and the Christmas spirit was not always dependent on him until the last century.



Asking the Socratic Questions

Before finishing my opening statement, I would like to ask my opponent some Socratic Questions as well:

Question 1). Don't you believe that creating and distributing the 'eternal light bulb' would decrease production dramatically, and therefore jobs, once there was no longer a continual need to produce new merchandise for products that are currently quickly 'turned over' and purchased?

Question 2). In some areas, light bulb manufacturing jobs are all that is available, much like the elves at the North Pole. So in comparison and reversing the situation, what would become of Santa and the elves at the North Pole, dependent on their jobs, if toys were made to be indestructible, never needed to be replaced, and last years toys were every bit as functional, thus ending the need for possibly 90% of new toy production?

Question 3). Do you think it is wrong for the government to be able to tell you what type of light bulb you are allowed to use in your own private home?

Question 4). Do you recognize the fact that while Rudolph's luminous nose is natural and safe, artificial lighting is what lights up our man-made bulbs?



Orange Light, you have the floor.

Post 2

Thanks to Ashley for her wonderful opening.
This time we are going to examine the origin of Rudolph’s nose, a nose which is shining brightly red.
Just take a look at him, isn’t he a beautiful reindeer?




The origin of Rudolph’s red and shiny nose

Most people would deny the possibility of an animal’s nose glowing.
But nearly everybody knows that animals are glowing. Just think of the Firefly!



Fireflies use the lightning to communicate with each other especially for mating reasons. The kind of lightning and who is the lightened guy differs from species to species. Some sent a flashing light, some a permanent light. The light is only used by night!

The process which create the light is called bioluminescence – from greek and latin origin: bios = life and lumen = light:

Bioluminescence is the production and emission of light by a living organism as the result of a chemical reaction during which chemical energy is converted to light energy.

[1]

The animal produces a cold light. Similar light production can be found in fishes of the deep-sea, corals or and with special kind of mushrooms. The light spectrum differs from blue, green, yellow to red and infrared. So all kind of lights is possible.

So what does it mean to our little hero Rudolph?

As we have seen Rudolph is the offspring of a reindeer family with a very good reputation. All members of Donner Reindeer’s family are able to fly, which proofs that there must have been a mutation some generations before Rudolph’s birth. It is know that some mutations just don’t develop very very slowly as it is used in breeding dogs for example, sometimes it happens that there is a sudden leap forward. The development of many generations takes place just in one.

Therefore Rudolph was born with this red and shiny nose. The nose is comparable to the light organ of fireflies and shines in the light spectrum of red. As we have learnt before it is a chemical process not to be mixed up with fluorescence or phosphorescence lights. The light Rudolph uses to show Santa’s sleigh the way through snow and storm is directly produced in the nose.

But Rudolph’s nose is not only glowing due to the process of bioluminescence, it also glows due to a very specific and somehow secret ingredient, which can’t be found far south from the North Pole. This secret ingredient is Magic, the Magic of Christmas which shines through Rudolph’s nose directly into our heart.

Therefore it is not an artificial light as my dear opponent claims; it is all in all quiet natural.
The bioluminescence is claimed to be a cold light:

Bioluminescence is a form of luminescence, or "cold light" emission; less than 20% of the light generates thermal radiation.

[1]

We don’t need electricity to participate in this light and we don’t need to increase pollution of the environment on several levels.

With my post I will show the inefficiency of so called modern light bulbs not only compared to Rudolph’s ever lasting red nose.

My dear opponent correctly answers the Socratic Question that Christmas has never been canceled before. But it has not yet been canceled because people, who pretend to create Christmas for their families. It has never been canceled because Rudolph is guiding the way for Santa and his sleigh for a safe journey.

For the Socratic Questions of my dear opponent:

Question 1). Don't you believe that creating and distributing the 'eternal light bulb' would decrease production dramatically, and therefore jobs, once there was no longer a continual need to produce new merchandise for products that are currently quickly 'turned over' and purchased?

No I don’t believe this. Industries and bosses who just don’t want to change things very often use this argument. Real progress is only possible with a vision. In this case the vision is an everlasting light bulb for the sake of our environment and for mankind. Don’t paralyze this progress with the old and long term used argument of “losing jobs”.
It has to be a honorable duty for bosses to create new jobs for those, who are no longer used for addle and monotonic light bulb production.

Question 2). In some areas, light bulb manufacturing jobs are all that is available, much like the elves at the North Pole. So in comparison and reversing the situation, what would become of Santa and the elves at the North Pole, dependent on their jobs, if toys were made to be indestructible, never needed to be replaced, and last years toys were every bit as functional, thus ending the need for possibly 90% of new toy production?

As Santa is a Boss, who really cares for his staff, he will develop areas for his elves to have different jobs. And we shouldn’t forget that the number of human beings on this planet is increasing nearly every day. More children, more toys, more elves work!

Question 3). Do you think it is wrong for the government to be able to tell you what type of light bulb you are allowed to use in your own private home?

No it is not wrong!
I don’t think it is wrong. Some people might think that in this case government is interfering too much in the freedom of our people. But government has a duty not only towards the people of the present, also towards the people of the future. They have the duty to protect the environment, safe this planet for our children.
Actually the European Community, Australia, New Zealand passed a bill, which doesn’t allow the sale of common light bulbs from 2009/2010 onwards.

Question 4). Do you recognize the fact that while Rudolph's luminous nose is natural and safe, artificial lighting is what lights up our man-made bulbs?

Yes I recognize this. As I told before I will talk about the efficiency of artificial light in my next post!

Socratic Question for AshleyD

SQ 1: Don’t you think that in a more and more technical world we should take the chances of something more natural like Rudolph’s nose?

SQ2: Wouldn’t a natural cold light like Rudolph’s nose help to prevent many accidents throughout the whole year, which would also lead to less expenses for the health system?

Ashley, the light is yours!

Let's briefly look into the purely natural and harmless science behind what makes Rudolph's nose glow for Santa on those dark and snowy nights. While my opponent has provided her evidence to explain Rudolph's luminous nose, I would like to present some of my own findings. We'll then contrast Rudolph's natural, safe light to our synthetic, and potentially harmful light.



What makes Rudolph's nose glow?

My opponent and I agree: All explanations point to Rudolph's nose being completely natural and safe. After all, it is what makes him unique from all the others. It's natural! If it were not, all of Santa's reindeer could easily reproduce the technology. So let's see what makes Rudolph's nose glow so bright for Santa:

...A thin, enclosed layer of a light-producing organ between the dermis and the epidermis. Inside this layer is luciferin, a light-producing substance, and luciferase, an enzyme that catalyzes the light-producing reaction... Most bioluminescent life forms, like fireflies, produce green light. The outermost part of Rudolph's nose, however, would be a red phosphorescent layer -- once the light-producing organ started creating light, the phosphorescent part of his nose would absorb the green light and emit a red light... Bioluminescence often requires another substance, like oxygen, to make light, and Rudolph would breathe lots of oxygen right near the light-producing organs, providing enough reactions for long, intensely shiny bursts of light. 1

Wonderful! Oxygen, enzymes, etc. Reading the full link will show Rudolph's nose is very similar to lighting bugs and deep sea fish. Perfectly harmless. However, Rudolph's eternally glowing nose simply isn't a good comparison or a good reason to believe we should have eternal light bulbs for human use as we will now see.



What about us South of the North Pole?

Because no known 'eternal' light bulb currently exists, we'll have to use what does currently exist and then make some connections of what the future possibly holds in store once we make the hypothetical switch to continual light bulbs.

There are already numerous problems arising with the transition from standard incandescent bulbs to longer lasting bulbs and these problems would almost certainly worsen with continual bulbs. As we shift away from Edison's shorter-lasting (and side effect free) incandescent bulb and move towards longer lasting bulbs, the side effects stemming from the long lasting bulb become more alarming. If trends continue, one could only imagine how things would escalate upon reaching the technology where bulbs would last forever. We'll be focusing on trends in light bulb production, development, and length use. And those trends certainly seem to say:



The longer lasting the bulb, the more drawbacks and risks face humans.

Down in our world is artificial lighting. While traditional incandescent light bulbs pose no threat whatsoever, there is much buzz circulating around the harmful side effects of long-lasting light bulbs. One cannot help but be concerned if these problems would be worsened once we're dealing with eternal light bulbs instead of merely 'long lasting.' It must be noted that none of the following hazards are found due to exposure to or the components of the standard shorter term bulbs.

The hazards of current long lasting bulbs include:

-While Rudolph has enzymes, we have poisonous mercury included in the bulbs that can lead to mercury poisoning from broken bulbs. This can seep through the skin, become airborne, be inhaled, and wreak havoc on the human nervous system (2, 3).

-Reddening of the skin due to UV radiation from close and extended exposure and possible skin cancer risks still under investigation (4, 5A).

-The lighting of LLF bulbs aggravate problems for migraine sufferers (5B).

-The flickering of LLF bulbs poses problems to those who suffer from epilepsy and complaints have come in from those diagnosed with lupus that the LLF bulbs are connected to an increase in pain (5C).



Post Summary.

It's been said that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but in this case, what is good for Rudolph, Santa, and the elves, is not good for us humans. Santa and company might be doing well up north with Rudolph's organic continual glow but it's just not the same down south.

In a future post, we'll go over some government action currently taking place where some people are no longer left with a choice what bulb to use and will tie it into the above where some sufferers of the conditions mentioned above are actually having to petition for the right to purchase and use what is still available in the U.S., standard, harmless incandescent bulbs. Certainly, 'long lasting, energy efficient' is being given a greater importance over people's health. There's no telling what could happen once we're told we much purchase continual bulbs regardless of the technology's side effects.

In the next post, we'll focus on current job losses stemming from the decrease in production of light bulbs and how this would only worsen once continual bulbs become the future. However, first things first. I would like to respond to some things in my opponent's above post.



Rebuttal to my Opponent.

1). My opponent claims Christmas has never been canceled because of Rudolph's nose. Yet, as I already stated in my previous post, as grateful as we are to Rudolph and his nose, Christmas was not always dependent on Rudolph. Due to his birth occurring in 1939 (sourced in my previous post) and Santa's birth in the 4th century, that leaves us with many centuries where Christmas went off without a hitch. Although Rudolph is of vital importance to Santa and his mission now, this was not always the case. Of course Santa didn't know what he was missing before Rudolph came along! But that doesn't mean Santa didn't find a way for centuries before that or that Christmas as a whole was impossible without Rudolph. As unpleasant of a thought it is and as much as I hate to point it out, Christmas was still on schedule every year. Rudolph simply makes Santa's job easier now.

2). At this time, I will be responding to my opponent's answer to the Socratic question dealing with the issues mentioned in this post. The others will be refuted in future posts corresponding to the proper future posts' subject for which it was asked. My opponent states:

They have the duty to protect the environment, safe this planet for our children.

Exactly! Although we'll be getting into this a bit more in depth in my third post, I just want to say that this was exactly my concern above. The health concerns mentioned above are being overshadowed for the sake of 'Green.' My opponent lists a few countries where the citizens will be unable to purchase standard light bulbs within the next couple years. What she does not know yet and what I will explain, is that the government is apparently more concerned with the environment than they are with human health. Citizens in the above listed countries are actually having to petition the government now for the right to purchase standard short-burning bulbs that don't exacerbate their health conditions.

I'll leave the rest alone for now as it will be more pertinent in future posts. But what my opponent states, is exactly my concern. Just how far will the government push the use of continual bulbs on its citizens, regardless of health risks, if current trends are any indication?



Answering the Socratic Questions.

1). "Don’t you think that in a more and more technical world we should take the chances of something more natural like Rudolph’s nose?"

Absolutely! This would be fantastic. However, it seems we are going in the exact opposite direction. Trends seem to indicate the longer lasting the bulb, the more dangerous it becomes. Unless the scientists and inventors find a way to harness the power of fireflies and deep sea fish, the technology of our light bulbs is nothing like Rudolph's nose.

2). "Wouldn’t a natural cold light like Rudolph’s nose help to prevent many accidents throughout the whole year, which would also lead to less expenses for the health system?"

No, I do not believe so. In the sense of accident prevention, a light is a light. Headlights, flashlights, whatever the light, it lights the way sufficiently for us to see. I do believe natural lighting technology would be ideal, however, this simply is not the case, not in existence, and trends do not seem to be pointing to that direction.



Back to you, Orange.

3rd post

Luckily my opponent visualized it very clearly for the readers how the process of bioluminescent works. So we agree completely about the nature of Rudolph’s shiny nose and the light, which is spread by it – all natural and due to breathing of oxygen ever lasting.

My opponent states

Because no known 'eternal' light bulb currently exists, we'll have to use what does currently exis

,

but this can’t necessarily mean that there will never be a eternal light bulb. As I claimed before, only visions make real progress possible.

If Thomas Edison would have let himself thrown back by the idea “there is no such thing like a light bulb existing” we would still sit in our living rooms by candle light. Sure a very romantic imagination but not very suitable for modern life. Not to forget all the eye damage caused by reading in semi darkness of romantic candle light – the only advantage : candle light smoozes the complexion of a lady.

Back to light bulbs!
My dear opponent states that nowadays light bulbs would cause many problems. I totally agree and therefore we should push the invention of a ever lasting light bulb by using the knowledge how Rudolph’s nose is working.

To emphasize the urgent necessity for a change in light bulb production I would like to show how inefficient a standard light bulb is. A light bulb works with electric energy. We know that this energy usually doesn’t just falls down from sky, it has to be produced, usually in power plants. Power plants, which run on gas, on coal or even worse on nuclear power. On one hand we can’t renew some of the resources, once used they are gone forever, and on the other hand it is very difficult to dispose nuclear decay. This is something lasting. A burden, not only for our children but grandchildren of many generations.

Sure we all know about so called renewable resources like sun energy, wind energy or water energy and thanks to the visions of some provident enlightened we are able to use them.

That’s for the energy to use a light bulb. A light bulb itself uses a high amount of energy to produce very poor light. The percentage of light, which can be seen by using a common light bulb is about approximately 5 %.[1]

5 %, imagine the waste of energy! This is ridiculous in times where mankind is able to fly to the moon.

And it is dangerous. The major amount of the energy is changed into heat, dangerous heat. How many children have burnt their hands at hot light bulbs? How many brands have been caused by hot light bulbs? Even the little innocent looking light chains being used for Christmas decorations and trees are able to cause brands. It is more than irresponsible to stick to the system of the common light bulb.
Not to speak of the problems, which are caused when a light bulb dies and has to be littered.

It is a step in the right direction to forbid these inefficient common light bulbs and replace them by long lasting, energy efficient bulbs, a step to the right direction but not far enough.

Now we ask for visions! The solution is right next-door or at the North Pole. Lets get scientists and Santa Claus work together. They could use the knowledge of genetic engineering for one good use, everlasting light bulbs for mankind.

As shown before the mechanism of bioluminescent is not only the reason for Rudolph’s glowing nose but also for the glowing of fireflies and many more animals and mushrooms. So it is very easy to gain a tissue, which can be breed in labs to be the basic of ever lasting light.
We live in a world of oxygen, which is renewed day-by-day, hour-by-hour due to the wonder of photosynthesis. Ever lasting light bulbs will also reduce pollution. We will need far less power plants of any kind.

If Santa Claus will work together with the scientists of mankind the magic of Christmas will also flow into the new source of light for humans.


Rebuttal to my Opponent:

Due to my opponents statements Rudolph and Santa Claus aren’t everlasting. She claims that one of them was born in 1939 and the other one in the 4th century. She proofs it with sources from the Internet. I guess I don’t have to tell the estimated reader that sources from the Internet are easily to be changed. But we are not debating if a proof found on the Internet is a real trustworthy proof. This might be a debate in the future.

I don’t doubt that a Saint Nicholas was born in the 4th century, but is he our Santa Claus. Santa Claus, who’s sleigh is guided by Rudolph? Is the very Rudolph, which Robert May claim invention in 1939 our Rudoph? This as well has to be proven in a future debate.

Our topic is As Rudolph's Nose Never Burns Out, We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever. We stated before that a big part of Rudolph’s glowing nose is the magic of Christmas. A magic, which has also been found in pagan times.
Christmas is celebrated at a time when light is very low. People seek for light. People always celebrated the winter solicit, the time when light came back to the world. People in former times regared the return of the light as magic. The spirit, the magic of Christmas was all around, even if the words they used for it was different. Therefore Rudolph and his glowing red nose is a symbol of the returning of the light.

Symbols are very strong for mankind, and therefore it is of no importance if the birth of Santa or Rudolph can be exactly stated. As symbols, as magic beings they will last from beginning of time to end of time, no matter what their names will be.

Back to you, Ashley!

Let's now focus our attention on a very touchy area in a world already filled with economic hard times: Job losses.



Of course there will always be jobs for some light bulb factory workers. New homes will be built, new lamps will be produced, new cars with new headlights, etc. All of these will still require the production of light bulbs once eternal bulb technology replaces disposable bulbs. However, this will still greatly reduce production as light bulbs will no longer be disposable, therefore less jobs will be required to fill decreased production demands.

We'll again be looking at current trends as we shift away from the traditional incandescent bulbs to longer lasting bulbs in order to make a connection to the possible eternal light bulb's future.

First, let's see how things are going with our friends at the North Pole.



Santa and Corporations: Apples and Oranges.

Rebuttal to Socratic Answer 1.

Earlier in the debate I asked my opponent what would happen if the situation was reversed and the elves were being laid off in the hypothetical scenario toys were indestructible and had no need for replacement toys. This is what she had to say:

As Santa is a Boss, who really cares for his staff, he will develop areas for his elves to have different jobs. And we shouldn’t forget that the number of human beings on this planet is increasing nearly every day. More children, more toys, more elves work!

The elves have little ones to feed, bills to pay (I doubt their houses are lit off the energy of Rudolph's nose), and a North pole economy to support. I have a hard time imagining what other jobs would be created to fulfill the losses if we had 'eternal toys.' However that still is not the main issue.

1). While Santa, the boss of benevolence, might care for his employees, the corporate world in our neck of the woods has proven their failure time and time again regarding their concern for the little guy. When you're laid off, you're laid off. They care nothing about finding their displaced ex-employees new positions nor their welfare. It's simply, 'Good Bye! Nice knowing you.'

2). As I stated in my opening statement, in some towns and areas, light bulb factories are the main, and sometimes only, jobs available. Not only will their bosses not be as helpful as Santa, they are left with very few alternatives for other employment.

3). Lastly, she makes the same point I mention above. There will always be children being born that would require toys on Christmas Eve. Naturally, this is of course very true and matches the same logic I used to say that light bulb production won't cease, but it will be greatly diminished. Just like there will be new children to provide toys for, there will be new homes and lamps to provide light bulbs for. I'm absolutely not saying toy or light bulb production will cease, I'm saying production will diminish so greatly and the job losses will be staggering.



It's Already Starting and the Job Loss Sting is Already Being Felt.

To provide an example, we'll see what's currently going on with one of the largest light bulb manufacturers in the world, General Electric, while they transfer their production focus from traditional light bulbs, to long lasting energy efficient bulbs.

GE downsizing light bulb production

General Electric is reported planning to close seven of its 54 light-bulb making plants and warehouses with the loss of some 1,400 jobs. In moving further from its 128-year-old incandescent heritage, GE is responding to global pressure to switch to energy-efficient lighting... GE's lighting division employs around 25,000 people around the world but over two years the company will have eliminated 16 percent of its lighting work force. GE previously laid off 3,000 workers in the unit (1).

Once again we are looking at trends. 4,400 jobs will already have been lost just for the transition to longer lasting bulbs. The article mentions this will equal 16% of their workforce being laid off in only two years. This is just one company, in two years, for only longer lasting bulbs. Logic demands that it would only be worse in the case of eternal bulbs where production would be severely decreased and limited to bulbs being created for new homes and new products.



Idealism Vs. Real World Scenarios.

Rebuttal to Socratic Answer 2.

My opponents states:

It has to be a honorable duty for bosses to create new jobs for those, who are no longer used for addle and monotonic light bulb production.

Honorable and ideal, absolutely! But this simply isn't 'real world' logic. In real life scenarios, like the light bulb factory workers above, employees subject to layoffs are not provided with alternative employment. They are simply given their walking papers. So what might be noble, simply isn't the case in the realm of business. These people lose their jobs, their bosses wave good bye, and an already unstable economy suffers another hit.



I'll now be offering some very brief general rebuttals to my opponent's post above.

Rebuttal 1

The Topic of This Debate and It's Hypothetical Nature.

My opponent states:

but this can’t necessarily mean that there will never be a eternal light bulb. As I claimed before, only visions make real progress possible.

Of course! A continual light bulb is most definitely a [futuristic] vision. The thing my opponent might not realize is the fact this is a purely hypothetical debate on a purely hypothetical invention. Eternal light bulbs do not exist yet. The debate nor my position centers around whether or not if they will exist, but should they. That is what we are discussing. We have no way of knowing what the future holds and if one day continual lighting will become a reality. We were assigned a hypothetical invention and it's possible benefits vs. possible drawbacks.

Rebuttal 2

The Light Bulb's Use of Energy.

My opponent then states:

A light bulb works with electric energy. We know that this energy usually doesn’t just falls down from sky, it has to be produced, usually in power plants. Power plants, which run on gas, on coal or even worse on nuclear power.

This is most definitely true but it must be emphasized this will still hold true if the eternal bulb becomes a reality. Unlike the magic of Rudolph's nose, Light bulbs aren't organic. They don't grow on trees. Or in a better comparison, on the tips of our pets noses to naturally and safely illuminate our homes.

So whether or not it's the traditional incandescent bulb invented by Edison, the longer-lasting modern fluorescent bulb, or the futuristic and hypothetical eternal bulb, they will all require some amount of energy to produce and a factory where they will be produced. I'm not entirely sure where my opponent was going with this but one thing is for sure: the energy required or the factories needed to produce light bulbs simply won't vanish once bulbs become continual. It's simply a different type of light bulb that will still require the same means.

My opponent then goes into the amount of energy the actual light bulb will require once in use but the same principle is in effect regarding factories and actually producing those light bulbs. And that is, even continual light bulbs will use energy of some sort. Unfortunately they can't run off of the Christmas spirit or the magic of Rudolph's nose. They will still require some form of energy to power them.



In my third official main post, we will then be discussing government involvement in private light bulb use and tie all three posts for my position together.

You again have the floor, Orange Light.

4th post

Oh dear me! Here we are again with the same old arguments. No jobs! Losing the job! And the whole package of moaning and lamenting. I am very sorry for everybody in the whole world, who is losing her/his job, I really feel that.

What I am really missing in the post of my dear opponent are simply visions. Visions of new jobs, visions of new technology, simply visions of making life a bit better.

Imagine what this world would look like if everybody with a new idea would have drawn back himself: “Na I won’t try to fill my idea with life! Na I won’t make my dream come true. What if somebody loses his job due to it?”

Nothing would have changed in this world. Nothing at all!

We would still sit in caves and delouse each other.
No wheel, no cars, no airplanes, no computers, no internet.
Just a dark and cold cave, some furs, a bit of meat and a helping hand scratching your back.
That’s all!

Maybe this is the idealized image of a pure life my opponent might have on her mind. I don’t know it.

But this simply isn't 'real world' logic.

My opponent is very fond of real world logic. I don’t mind. It is real world logic that mankind wants to develop. Mankind wants to proceed. Mankind wants to advance.

Therefore creative minds have visions. Therefore creative minds invent new stuff from wheels to telephones to Internet to computers to rockets to space labs.
Every invention wants to make our life a little better, or at last the life of somebody else, who gets the money that’s real world logic too.

So don’t let us moan because some progress cost some jobs.
This is a point where the world has to be creative or has to listen to other creative minds, has to pick up visions, which will help to solve these problems.

This is a very wide area: losing jobs, replace them with other jobs.
Maybe we are stuck to much in the old ideas of a productive job. Yeah I hear the arguments: but we need money to care for our kids, we need money to pay the rent. All so true!
Here I have to demand visions again.

Luckily for my opponent some people already got these visions. This vision is called “basic income”.

A basic income is a proposed system of social security, that periodically provides each citizen with a sum of money that is sufficient to live on. Except for citizenship, a basic income is entirely unconditional.

[1]

The connection between more and better has been broken; our needs for many products and services are already more than adequately met, and many of our as-yet- unsatisfied needs will be met not by producing more, but by producing differently, producing other things, or even producing less. This is especially true as regards our needs for air, water, space, silence, beauty, time and human contact...

[2]

Such a basic income would meet the demands of people losing their job because production lines are changing. It would also develop a different point of view on jobs in general. We didn’t have to work anymore because we need the money, we could work because we want to.
And therefore we could also work in fields where the money a person can make is usually very low, like housework, education, caring for elderly people.

And we could afford the luxus of researching in fields like inventing a light bulb comparable to Rudolph’s red and shiny nose.

The idea of basic income also rebuts the statementof my opponent

The elves have little ones to feed, bills to pay (I doubt their houses are lit off the energy of Rudolph's nose), and a North pole economy to support. I have a hard time imagining what other jobs would be created to fulfill the losses if we had 'eternal toys.'

Neither hard time in imagine different jobs is necessary anymore, nor whining about elves losing jobs. Elves can also do, what they want from the bottom of their heart, may it be toy manufacturing or reindeer breeding or what ever.

Rebutal of the Hypothetical Nature of the Debate Topic

My opponent states:

A continual light bulb is most definitely a [futuristic] vision. The thing my opponent might not realize is the fact this is a purely hypothetical debate on a purely hypothetical invention.

Sure the idea of an eternal light bulb or let us better say, an eternal light source is a very futuristic vision. But it is a vision like many inventors had had their visions before.

My opponent states:

Eternal light bulbs do not exist yet.

Right, they do not exist yet. If we follow the arguments of my dear opponent, it will never have a chance to exist. To my opponent it is much more important to keep the status quo than to create a future, which makes life worth living, for us and our offsprings.
She claims that even eternal light bulbs will need energy while being produced. Although nobody really knows yet about the nature of such an eternal light bulb, this can’t be denyed.
But it is better to proceed than to stagnate. Yeah some energy will be used, but in my opinion far less than the production of todays light bulbs either common or energy efficient.

My opponent states:

Light bulbs aren't organic.

What makes you so sure that an eternal light bulb won’t be organic? True today’s light bulbs aren’t organic. Two hundred years ago light sources haven’t been electric, people used candle light.

Socratic Question
SQ 1: How can you claim that an organic light source might not be possible?

My opponent tends to forget about the magic of Santa Claus. This case might be a hypothetical case – today around Christmas 2008. But if we let it happen, if we truly wish that mankind will own an eternal light source available for every man, every woman, every child, than make a wish and Santa Claus will put it on his list.
And with the help of Rudolph’s guiding nose it will be delivered


Ashley playground is yours!

Every year in December, Santa leaves his cozy home at the North Pole to come to our cities and towns and listens jollily while children sit in his lap and tell him what they would like for Christmas. The elves then work hard to fill each order expeditiously in time for Christmas and as requested. How nice it must be to both have a choice in what you would like and to receive what you chose.

Sadly, the government isn't as accommodating as Santa and is now taking initiative to tell you what is good for you and what you will have, like it or not. Let's take a look what is currently being prepared in over 40 countries.



We've already established a connection and trend that the longer lasting the bulb, the more adverse effects it has on the human body, the more dangerous components they include, and the more jobs they cause to be lost. I hope nobody is expecting any understanding from the government- they simply don't care. They've already made up your mind for you.

Canada, Europe, South America, Asia, Australia, and yes, even America, are all in the process of phasing out your right to purchase shorter lasting bulbs (1).

If you Google the phrase 'incandescent bulb ban' or something similar, you will be met with countless results. So, let's just review a couple examples.

An example of bans and health impact:

EU to ban traditional light bulbs, but at what cost to health and the environment?

Natural News reports that “according to health advocates including the Skin Care Campaign, Spectrum and even the British Association of Dermatologists, fluorescent light bulbs are known to worsen skin rashes in people with a variety of diseases and conditions including dermatitis, eczema, lupus, photosensitivity, porphyria and Xeroderma Pigmentosum.”

“The groups warned that a complete ban on incandescent lighting for people with such conditions would violate the Disability Discrimination Act, and that employers should also be allowed to purchase incandescent lights if their employees have a need for them.”

Normal lightbulbs on prescription perhaps? I wonder what the ’street’ value would be (2).

The 'Prescriptions and street value' remark is humorous yet concerning. I only hope that if or when the continual bulb is invented we won't lose even more of our rights or that our government's demand that we use those bulbs won't be at the expense of our health. It's also extremely alarming they are having to invoke the Disability Discrimination Act for something that should be our right: The choice of lighting.

An example of bans and health, economic, and environmental impact:

The European Union began the process on Monday of moving away from the incandescent light bulb but the energy-efficient alternatives may not be all they're cracked up to be [as] they contain harmful substances and disposal is difficult.

The plan envisions the gradual disappearance of incandescent bulbs, first introduced by Thomas Edison 130 years ago.

The Commission estimates that up to 3,000 jobs could be lost in the European Union as a result of the switch.

Furthermore, CFLs contain mercury and other harmful substances that can be dangerous if the bulb is broken. It is also illegal in many countries, including Germany, to dispose of them in household trash. At present, there is no system for the disposal of such light bulbs in Germany, forcing consumers to take expired bulbs to electronic recycling centers themselves (3).

How lovely. The ban could care less about your health, thousands of jobs, or the fact the technology is so harmful they cannot even be disposed of in your household trash but must be taken to special facilities.



Tying My Three Posts Together With A Conclusion.

Is this our future as well with continual bulbs? While the government's excuse for all of this current nonsense and havoc is 'longer lasting bulbs are more energy efficient,' could the government's excuse to infringe upon your freedom of choice, harm your health, worsen your economy by killing jobs, and inconvenience you by regulating your trash disposal methods then become, 'Eternal bulbs create less waste?'

Only time will tell if the continual bulb becomes a reality.



I'll now be moving on to the rebuttal section of my third official post.

Rebuttal to my opponent's Socratic Answer.

When asked if it is wrong for the government to be able to tell its citizens what type of light bulb you are allowed to use in your own private home, my opponent answered:

No it is not wrong!
I don’t think it is wrong. Some people might think that in this case government is interfering too much in the freedom of our people. But government has a duty not only towards the people of the present, also towards the people of the future. They have the duty to protect the environment, safe this planet for our children.

I must strongly disagree with my opponent. Not only is this yet another case of governments telling its citizens what to do in their own private homes and business, the governments of the world are completely bowling over the rights of its citizens to choose while completely ignoring the needs of those who suffer from health conditions which are exacerbated by certain bulbs.

It is nothing more than a case of the government thinking they somehow are more capable of knowing what is good for the citizen than the citizens themselves. This is wrong! Although I fully support taking care of the environment (which we're not even sure the hypothetical bulb will even benefit- it could be extremely harmful on the environment for all we know), I absolutely do not support 'Green' taking precedence over human health. Yet, that is exactly what trends are pointing to.

I'm now going to ask my opponent the same Socratic Question as above, only this time add a twist at the end:

Socratic Question 1: Do you think it is wrong for the government to be able to tell you what type of light bulb you are allowed to use in your own private home even if the type of bulb consists of harmful neurotoxins like mercury or adversely affects your health but you are forced to use it anyways and not purchase another type of bulb that does not have these negative side effects?



General Rebuttals to my opponent's above post.

Rebuttal 1: Inventions that Create Jobs vs. Inventions That Will Destroy Them.

Logic demands and current trends prove the loss of jobs coincide with the length of a running bulb. However, my opponent claims they will actually help create jobs (while all evidence and common sense points to the contrary of her claim) and uses some of the following examples as a comparison:

No wheel, no cars, no airplanes, no computers, no internet.

And later:

wheels to telephones to Internet to computers to rockets to space labs

My opponent once again is comparing apples to oranges. All of the above listed inventions have resulted in countless new jobs throughout the last century while I have already established that the same is not true for the eternal bulb. Trends and logic indicate job loss, not growth.

Rebuttal 2: Organic Bulbs. Say What!?!.

My opponent states:

What makes you so sure that an eternal light bulb won’t be organic?

Then asks in a Socratic Question:

How can you claim that an organic light source might not be possible?

Common sense and looking at trends, of course! Our world is becoming more artificially powered and synthetically created- not less. I suppose if someone comes up with 'Eternal Organic Light Bulb Seeds' one day I'll have egg on my face. But until then and back here in reality, I highly doubt this will ever, ever happen. So I have trends, evidence, and common sense on my side. Let me reverse the question and ask you this:

Socratic Question 2: What makes you so sure eternal light bulbs will be organic?

I really hope the answer will not be similar to your statement here:

Two hundred years ago light sources haven’t been electric, people used candle light.

Yes, they most certainly did. And we have done nothing but shift further away from this into artificial and synthetic. Trends are on my side.



Thus sums up my case and I will return next with my closing statement and any necessary rebuttals. Back to you, My Good Friend.

closing statements

Throughout this debate we have shown how Rudolph’s red and shiny nose is working, a – in my opinion – very realistic opportunity for an eternal light bulb.
The phenomenon is a kind of chemical reaction, which is called bioluminescence.

Bioluminescence is a very efficient process. Some 90% of the energy a firefly uses to create light is actually converted into visible light.

[1]

Compared to this an incandescent light bulb got an efficiency of approximately 5%.

Although mankind still acts as if energy resources will last forever, it is my strongest notion to care for our planet, to spare resources our children and future generations. Therefore the switch to energy efficient light bulbs as planned in the EU is one step in the right direction.

Even if energy efficient light bulbs aren’t as harmless as an apple, it is a step in the right direction, since we have to care for future generations.

Socratic Question 1: Do you think it is wrong for the government to be able to tell you what type of light bulb you are allowed to use in your own private home even if the type of bulb consists of harmful neurotoxins like mercury or adversely affects your health but you are forced to use it anyways and not purchase another type of bulb that does not have these negative side effects?

In my opinion it is not wrong.
My opponent is mixing the duty of mankind and of our government in caring for future generations by saving energy resources and possible health risks.
We have to differentiate clearly between these two topics.
Yes, we have to care for our environment, this can’t be dismissed by rebutting “green ideas”.
Nevertheless, the harms that could happen to our health shouldn’t be dismissed either. In this case a lot of research has to be done. I would highly consider to invent an organic eternal light bulb, which as we learnt from the “construction” of Rudolph’s nose will be considered as less harmful as any existing technology.

My opponent consistently claims that a change in light ball production, even if it would reduce the amount of energy used for it, or reduces the amount of energy being used operating the light bulb, can’t be tolerated since the loss of jobs might happen.

She shows a consistently lack of visions in this case.
But visions are what this world desperately needs!
These days the world experiences an economical breakdown, which can hardly be compared to any we have experienced before. This shows that a change in thinking, a change in acting is urgently necessary.

For the lame and antiquated argument of job loss I stated the idea of a basic income. To figure out how capable these ideas might be, we would need an entire debate. Since winners of the Nobel Prize of Economics like Milton Friedman and Herbert Simon fully support this idea, show that any rebuttal is only a tendency to fix the status quo. [2]

If we allow the world to remain in status quo it would only lead to stagnation, which finally would end in death.
But that’s not what man is made for. We are born to proceed, to fight, to change our world.
We just have to recognize chances and follow our ideas and visions.

Even if inventions of the past might have created thousands or millions of jobs, we have to go that far to question the idea of having a paid job. My opponent might call this idealistic again, not following the logic of the so-called real world. Just look around where real world logic and non-idealism has brought us! Breakdown of economic, destroy of environment, break down of family structures and many, many more.

I have to ask the reader: is this really the world you want to live in? Or do you agree that we should take our chance and try to change the world, to make it better.
A great computer company once advertised with the slogan:

Think different!


This is what we need! The courage to think different! The courage to have visions. The courage to change the world!

Socratic Question 2: What makes you so sure eternal light bulbs will be organic?

It is my strong believe in mankind to be able to think different, to experiment, to find new ways!
At Christmas 2008 we got experience in many fields, we got experience in anorganic lights and we got experience in changing organic material. We knew from nature that organic light is possible. Now we have to combine the knowledge and think different to make it come true.
Not less, not more.

We just are courageous enough to adopt the magic of Christmas, let it influence our life, and Rudolph’s nose will guide us home.

––––––––

Thanks AshleyD for a fantastic debate, I really enjoyed myself.
Thanks for the readers to follow me that far, and thanks to the judges for their time!

I wish you all a very

Merry Christmas!


May Santa find the way to your chimney, Rudolph the red-nosed Reindeer will lead the way!

Brief Rebuttals

Before offering my official closing statements and debate summary, I would like to take a moment to very briefly offer a handful of rebuttals to my opponent's above post.

Rebuttal 1

My opponent states:

Throughout this debate we have shown how Rudolph’s red and shiny nose is working, a – in my opinion – very realistic opportunity for an eternal light bulb. The phenomenon is a kind of chemical reaction, which is called bioluminescence.

Yet earlier in the debate, my opponent mentions another contributing factor in Rudolph's glowing nose as being 'magic.' Once again, what works for Rudolph does not work for us. While she claims we could easily reproduce what makes him tick to create eternal light bulb technology, I'm left wondering how 'magic' would come into play for creating eternal light bulbs.

We simply cannot use Rudolph's nose as a comparison for future technology, as I have shown repeatedly throughout this debate, but we surely couldn't do it if one of the necessary components was 'magic.' Therefore I must disagree with my opponent when she claims eternal light bulbs are a 'very realistic opportunity.' Basing the technology on the Rudolph's 'magic' simply is not feasible and not possible.

Rebuttal 2

When asked if it is acceptable for the government to mandate the types of bulbs its citizens use even at the expense of their health, my opponent replied:

In my opinion it is not wrong.
My opponent is mixing the duty of mankind and of our government in caring for future generations by saving energy resources and possible health risks.
We have to differentiate clearly between these two topics.

Once again, I must strongly disagree with my opponent. Her reasoning basically boils down to letting people suffer or be exposed to negative side effects of the eternal bulb technology for the sake of the environment (And we cannot forget we don't even know if eternal light bulbs would even benefit the environment. They could be the same or even worse for all we know). I will say it one last time: As much of an advocate I am of being good stewards of our environment or of 'thinking Green,' I do not believe it should be at the expense of human health.

Rebuttal 3

My opponent then claims:

She shows a consistently lack of visions in this case.

Actually, 'visions' are exactly what I am looking at. Sadly, trends do not indicate beneficial visions but instead, nightmares. Health risks, economic impacts, governmental tyranny. Etc. It would be nice if every vision was a beautiful one but in the case of eternal light bulbs, the 'vision' is not pretty and I must be a realist and provide an accurate case.



Summarizing the Contrasts Made by Myself Throughout This Debate

The topic of our debate is: As Rudolph's Nose Never Burns Out, We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever.

The very nature of the debate topic demands that both positions make a comparison (for the pro side) and a contrast (for the con side) to Rudolph's nose in order to debate either the merits (pro position) or drawbacks (con position) to the eternal light bulb. That is exactly what I have done.

Throughout the course of the debate I have made many contrasts between Rudolph and the North Pole way of life vs. light bulb technology and our world. A summary list includes:

Rudolph's Nose: Organic.
Light Bulbs: Artificial.

Rudolph's Nose: Naturally and magically powered.
Light Bulbs: Artificially and realistically powered.

Rudolph's Nose: Safe and harmless.
Light Bulbs: Pose health risks and contain harmful elements.

Santa as Leader: Benevolent and caring.
Our Governments: Tyrannical and aloof.

North Pole Toy Workforce: Jobs are secure.
Our Light bulb Workforce: Jobs are insecure and thousands of layoffs are occurring.

My position depended on the contrasts and as you can see, many contrasts were made. This was done to show that just because something works fine and dandy up at the North Pole and with Rudolph, absolutely does not mean we are functioning under the same circumstances down south. As I said in a previous post, in this case, what is good for the goose, or reindeer, is not good for the gander, or us people.

On the other hand, I have seen my opponent make no comparisons in support of her position.

This will be the most important statement contained within this entire debate so it will be bolded:

The very way the debate topic is posed requires us to use the logic that because 'X' works for Rudolph, 'X' should work for humans. But I have clearly proven throughout this debate that Rudolph's nose and our technology/world are polar opposites to each other. The assumed logic of the debate topic's question has been proven wrong.



Summarizing My Case and My Opponent's Lack of a Case.

It should be somewhat obvious to the reader than my position in this debate was most certainly the hardest to defend and fight for. After all, at first thought, an eternal light bulb sounds like a fantastic invention. However, I brought some things to light in an effort to show trends and evidence as we shift towards longer-lasting bulbs, which could eventually cross over if the hypothetical eternal light bulb became a reality.

My main arguments may be summed up as follows, using trends as indications:

The longer a light bulb is designed to last:

1). The more harmful it becomes to humans.
2). The more dangerous components it contains.
3). The more caution is used in disposal.
4). The more energy is used in production.
5). The more jobs are lost, in increments of thousands.
6). The more governments tighten their control on the people.

Whether or not you agree with me on the severity of any or all of the above, one thing must be said: I am the only one who actually presented a case.

While my opponent certainly had the advantage going into this debate due to having the more defensible position, she forfeited that advantage by failing to:

1). Build a case of her own, instead only opting to respond to my case.
2). Present positive comparisons between Rudolph and the hypothetical eternal light bulb.
3). Tell us any sort of benefits to the eternal light bulb.

While her opening post painted a charming picture of Rudolph's Christmas narrative and while her first case post discussed the fact Rudolph's nose is natural (something I never denied, in fact I mentioned the same thing because it is beneficial to my case), neither post consisted of explaining to the reader why the eternal bulb is a beneficial invention. Her two following posts contained nothing but rebuttals to my case (which I in turn refuted) and answers to any Socratic questions I may have asked.

In short, as great of a pleasure it was to read my opponent's posts that teemed over with Christmas cheer, the fact remains: My opponent never presented a case nor did she introduce any unique arguments into the debate.



Tying It All Together.

So throughout my case I have contrasted Rudolph's nose and life in general up at the North pole to our technology and world down here. This in itself completely castrates the assumption of the debate topic that what works for Rudolph works for us. My opponent never provided any similarities or comparisons to Rudolph and us in order to substantiate her position.

I have also presented several possible negative side effects in the realm of health, environment, government, and economics by using trends as an indication. My opponent presented no case of her own but instead focused on pleasant Christmas narratives and rebuttals of my case, which were later refuted by myself.

At this time, I can say with certainty, 'We cannot use Rudolph or his nose as any indication that we should have eternal light bulbs.'



Final Thank Yous.

Unfortunately, this post is the last post for this debate. I use the word 'unfortunately' because this debate with Orange Light has been one of the most enjoyable interactions for me on ATS. Although the holiday spirit flowing throughout this debate was part of that fun, most of the credit for my enjoyment must go to my wonderful opponent, her Christmas cheer, quick wit, and engaging thoughts on this topic.

I thoroughly enjoyed our exchange and I am looking forward to her future contributions to this forum! Orange Light, I hope you enjoyed the [sleigh] ride as much as myself and your first try at ATS debates was a good experience for you!

Thank you again to all viewers, the judges, and to Semper. Merry Christmas to everyone!

Now off to the Judges...

(I wonder if the Grinch is available to judge?)

Semper

The Long Awaited Results Are In

Holiday Skirmish: orange-light vs AshleyD: "Oh Rudolph With Your Nose So Bright"

Interesting reading. OL made a good case with the naturalness of the light and the idea of a vision for the future, she just needed to flesh it out a little more. She had some good points to build on and could have possibly refute Ashley's job loss argument but only skirted it.

Ashley did well in showing that with current technology, possible risks involved with next generation lightbulbs may pose risks to us in several ways.

Lots of Christmas cheer from both fighters

Good job to both the ladies. By a narrow margin, I give it to Ashley.

First, I would like to congratulate both fighters on providing us with a very entertaining yet informative debate. It is the nature of the "holiday skirmish" to balance fun and facts and both fighters achieved this admirably.

Both fighters started strong presenting their respective cases though orange-light seemed to make the most of the holiday spirit whereas AshleyD focused more on the technical, social, and overall pragmatic aspects of the discussion.

I believe orange-light gained the upper hand with her introduction of bioluminescence as a viable alternative technology to existing lightbulb technology. That was a great transition from the "story" of Santa and Rudolph to what could well be the answer to our lightbulb dilemma.

AshelyD countered with the fact that we are not yet at the point to make use of this Rudolph based technology and that the present technology of longer lasting light bulbs is in fact more harmful than the old incandescent lightbulb. Whereas this might well be true it is in fact not the topic of the debate. The topic is: "We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever," it is not are current long lasting bulbs adequate.

This point is further emphasized by orange-light when she calls AshleyD's lack of vision to task:


Right, they do not exist yet. If we follow the arguments of my dear opponent, it will never have a chance to exist. To my opponent it is much more important to keep the status quo than to create a future, which makes life worth living, for us and our offsprings.

What makes you so sure that an eternal light bulb won’t be organic? True today’s light bulbs aren’t organic. Two hundred years ago light sources haven’t been electric, people used candle light.


AshleyD spent a lot of time in this debate arguing that permanent light bulbs would lead to job loses. I found this argument to be extremely lacking. It is the argument of the carriage maker at the time the automobile was invented and it has been proven over time to be a poor one. As orange-light put it:


imagine what this world would look like if everybody with a new idea would have drawn back himself: “Na I won’t try to fill my idea with life! Na I won’t make my dream come true. What if somebody loses his job due to it?”

Nothing would have changed in this world. Nothing at all!


AshleyD made some good points throughout the debate but as I said before relied too much on exposing the downside of existing technology rather than talking directly to the true topic of the debate as stated above. It is true that debating that light bulbs should not be eternal is a difficult position to defend requiring a creative argument. This however was never attempted.

For this and all the other reasons stated above, I make orange-light the winner!

In my opinion, AshleyD (AD) wins this debate, although orange-light (OL) did a great job. It was a hard debate to judge because OL's strength may actually have worked against her here. OL really kept the spirit of the debate light and in holiday spirit, and was enjoyable to read. But AD managed to stay in the spirit and also to score some good points with her attention to detail.

OL's use of "magic" and "vision" were appealing, but needed something firmer to back them up. And AD scored a major point when she pointed out that OL admitted Rudolph's nose relied on magic: "I'm left wondering how 'magic' would come into play for creating eternal light bulbs."

OL makes a start at backing up her position when she says "So it is very easy to gain a tissue, which can be breed in labs to be the basic of ever lasting light" in her second post, but she doesn't follow through on the point, which could have seriously undermined AD's

SPLIT decision goes to...................

AshleyD!!!!!!

Congratulations to both fighters and a BIG THUMBS UP. to orange-light on her first debate!!!!

Semper

congratulation AshleyD,

it was quiet fun doing this very first debate of mine with you.
i enjoyed every moment, and every character i wrote and read!




thanks again for jumping in so quickly

I just wanted to say that this debate was fun to read...great job Orange_Light and AshleyD!!

Congratulations!!

Good job, Orange! Thanks a bunch for doing this debate with me. I meant what I said in my closing statement when I mentioned this thread being one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had on ATS. It was a blast and you did great. Thank you for being such a gracious and worthy opponent.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by AshleyD]

I just had to share this with OL and anyone else who is interested:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It doesn't last forever, it's not based off of Rudolph's nose, and it isn't magical but that's still pretty cool. Possible longevity is 60 years, approximate cost is $2, and it does not contain the mercury current LLF bulbs contain.

reply to post by AshleyD


very interesting but not organic!


this is something i would just personally watch and maybe buy in one or two years
glad that inovations are possible

reply to post by orange-light


Hey, it's all thanks to you and your 'mad skillz.' The inventors kept up with this debate and are now working in stages to ultimately implement your technology. I except to see organic bioluminescent light bulbs within 5 years. Remember me when you receive your Nobel Prize.