Fire Is Alive

As the host has structured this debate, this will be my Arguments against the topic. I will provide my rebuttal to my opponent"s case next round. I claim that fire is not living. Now, we must keep in mind that we are in pursuit of truth when debating. "We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity" (Donald Trump). To be honest, I didn"t expect to be quoting Trump, but the quote stands true. We must be honest in our debates and concede what we have found wrong. I"d like to state claims that shouldn"t be considered in this debate. For example, any claims that are obviously false, troll, or fallacious should be disregarded. The judges should use their common sense in evaluating claims and use their best judgment. Now my opponent and I agree that humans are living. We disagree on whether a fire is living. The burden set on my opponent is proving that fire fulfills the criteria provided. Not one of them, but all of them. Now, I will go into my proofs for why fire is not considered living. Starting with excretion, respiration, and finally reproduction. Excretion- The process, act or function of discharging or ejecting waste product of metabolism, especially from the system of an organism. A fire cannot excrete waste, which in the sense of organisms would most likely mean poop. As the definition states, which went uncontested by my opponent, the fire must have a metabolism. The fire has not been proved to have a metabolism. There is a very clear understanding as to what a metabolism is. My opponent cannot claim that something has a metabolism, solely because it seems to replicate its appearance. For example, someone cannot claim that someone is alive by getting their corpse and moving their arms around. The judges must think to themselves during this debate, whether they really believe fire has a metabolism. As of now, no proof has been shown of such. Without any evidence of excretion, this criterion has not been fulfilled, therefore my side of the resolution has been achieved. Respiration- breathing, which is the process of inhaling and exhaling gasses from and into the external environment " a function of the lungs and other structures with similar function (e.g. gills). A fire cannot breathe. For a fire to breathe, the fire must have something with capacity for air such as lungs, gills, or the tissues plants use. However, fire does not contain any of these. My opponent has to provide credible scientific studies that prove Fire has the capacity inhaling or exhaling. As a preemptive, simply using up a certain gas and producing a different one, is not the same as the action of inhaling. If this were the case, anything with a chemical reaction involving air would be considered living because it can breathe. Without any evidence of respiration, this criterion has not been fulfilled, therefore my side of the resolution has been achieved. Reproduction- The production of offspring by organized bodies A fire cannot reproduce in an organism sense. Offspring is defined as "the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant" (https://www.merriam-webster.com...). A fire is neither an animal nor a plant. Therefore, it"s impossible for fire to fulfill this criterion. Without any evidence of reproduction, this criterion has not been fulfilled, therefore my side of the resolution has been achieved. These are the only characteristics I will be addressing because I find the rest to be unnecessary. To recap, fire is not living because it doesn't fulfill the criterion of excretion, respiration, and reproduction.