String theory

Rather than replying to your entire wall of text, I will simply reiterate important points and rest. I'll start with a little defense. String theory, as my oppomnent has pointed out, does not contain complete equations, nor is it complete. It also does not make any predictions, but this is due to the fact that there are no complete equations yet. My opponent said in his last post that once there are predictions and these predctions are hypothetically proven wrong, string theorists would simply "Ignore the data." This is a ridiculous assertion made with no clear basis, at least no basis other than my opponent's overall disdain for anyone who doesn't dismiss string theory out of hand. String theory need not be verifyable to be good. String theory need not actually be a theory to be good. Keep in mind the debate topic is not "String theory is a theory in the scientific sense of the word." The debate topic is simply "String theory." My opponent claims that a massless particle is impossible. However, there is no scientific law that states this. My opponent has looked at a lot of roads, filled with automobiles, and decided that it's impossible for a horse and buggy to be on the road. Just because the overwhelming number of observations are automobiles, there is no impossiblity to see a horse and buggy, nor is there an impossibility of a massless particle. All science does not have to be falsifiable. Any theory must be falsifiable. But string theory is no theory, yet. Nor is it a complete hypothesis. It is a formative work of science. It is _not done_. Any complete scientific idea would have to be falsifiable, but it's quite clear that string theory will not be complete until it at least reaches this point. You know, when it makes predictions based on completed formulas. Regardless, it matters not whether string theory is considered science, by me, you, the audience, or anyone else. That's not the question at hand. My opponent has also claimed that string theory is just made-up, and has absolutely no backing. However, he ignores the fact that there _are_ equations, however incomplete, that seem to be quite in line with reality. It's not just some story with absolutely no scientific information involved. My opponent is speaking from apparent ignorance by claiming that it's just a story. And now, my final, positive reaffirmation. String theory is the only viable approach which seems to work equally well in the quantum and macro worlds. It is the best lead we currently have in unifying the realm of the very small and the very big. Scientific theories of today, such as quantum mechanics and relativity, simply do not work together. They contradict each other. Both cannot be correct as they are, and string theory seeks to fix that which is broken. It is not as poorly developed as my opponent would have you believe. There are actual theoretical physicists who work on string theory continually. It has content, it's the most promising unifyer of relativity and quantum theories, and the only reasons to dismiss it are faulty. It may sound incredible to some, but that's quite a poor reason to discredit it. Thumbs up for string theory, the best hope for unifying our theories of how reality works.