Get your votes in now. Polls shut soon!
Tag Archives: debate
Thomas approached me long ago with a simple yet misguided premise; viruses are objectively better than bacteria. I’ve been playfully criticising virology for years and it sounds like I finally broke him. In any case we went back to our respective corners to put forward our respective cases. We each wrote our own arguments separately and next week you will hear our rebuttals. You got to read Thomas’ attempt at an argument last week so without any further ado…
Viruses are objectively better than bacteria. Nah, not really.
There are many ways I can attack this topic but intend to concentrate on just three. Bacteria are better at killing you than viruses, better at helping you live than any virus and are better for the environment than any virus could be. Continue reading
I am throwing down the gauntlet. James, you sir, have insulted my and my discipline’s honour for the last time. Time for a good ol’ fashion debate. Here and now, let the readers be the judge. Have at you, sirrah!
Viruses are better than bacteria. I really shouldn’t have to say this; it is almost self-evident. They’re more populous, more deadly, more diverse, more resistant, more elegant, more beautiful and more important than anything bacteria have to offer. But we’ll go through this point by point, just so you get it.
First, they’re everywhere. Every organism on the face of this planet is attacked by some sort of virus. Think about all the different types of the organisms you can see (a dog, an ant, a fly, a tree outside, that guy creepily watching you read this article…), then think of the organisms that live off those organisms (mites, bacteria, parasites, fungus…); for every species, there are 10 different viruses that will infect it. If there is life, viruses that will parasitise off it.
Hell, there’s even a virus that infects viruses. Continue reading