Group 2 Debate Primer - Opposition Party

Foreword
1. Purpose:
This primer is intended to serve as a guiding framework for the individual. It offers necessary and vital
information for the reader’s perusal. It will act as an introduction for the individual to the topic, and the
important facts to consider for the debate.
2. Scope:
This primer will cover the fundamental aspects and information of the ‘Continental Drift Theory’
(CDT), its current status in the contemporary environment, and criticism of the theory. This will serve as a
guidebook to apprise the individual of the key points for, and against CDT — including contextual information.

Main Body
Section 1: Continental Drift Theory
1-1. Definition - Continental Drift Theory was put forward, and presented with numerous publications — by
the German geologist and geophysicist, Alfred Wegener. It is defined as: “-movement of the Earth’s continents
relative to each other, thereby appearing to drift together across the ocean bed.” (University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign)
It proposes that: The continents were once a singular supercontinent he termed ‘Pangaea’. As stated
earlier, he argues that the continents drifted over the past 300 to 200 million years, and separated to their
current positions on Earth's surface. He termed this movement ‘Continental Drifting’. (Wegener 1920)

1-2. Supporting Evidence - Wegener put forward a substantial amount of sensible evidence supporting his
theory, which are as follows:
A. Similar rock types - Rock types of similar types have been found on separate continents, e.g. rocks in
the Appalachian, Caledonide ranges of North America, British Isles, and Norwegian were found to be of similar
age, and are able to form a single mountain range when put together.
B. Ice distribution - Glacial grooves were found in India, South America, Australia, and African
continents. When put together with Antarctica, factoring in latitudinal correction, the continents ice
distribution fit with each other.
C. Fossil evidence - The fossils of the freshwater reptile ‘Mesosaurus’ were found in the South American
and African tips. Additional fossils from different creatures, and plants e.g. Glossopteris, etc. which are unable
to swim, or possess seeds too heavy for the wind to carry, were also found in different continents.
D. Continental fit - Continental coastlines were found to fit with each other, as observed by the western
and eastern coastlines of South America and Africa respectively — forming the supercontinent ‘Pangaea’.
E. Coral and coal distribution - Ancient coral reefs and coal-forming swamps are found in colder
environments in comparison with their contemporary counterparts. It was suggested that these were once in
more tropical environments, but has since then ‘drifted’ from its position to where it is in modern times.

Referenced ‘Alfred Wegener’s Hypothesis on Continental Drift and Its Discussion in Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen’ by
Demhardt, 2005; ‘Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane’ by Wegener 1920. Item ‘E’ of entry 1-2 will possibly not be included
by the debating parties, but is listed down for referential purposes. Citation from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 2014.
Group 2 Debate Primer - Opposition Party

1-3. Driving Mechanism - Throughout his publications, Wegener has put forward hypotheses as to how
land masses are able to move. An excerpt from ‘The Rejection of Continental Drift’ by a Naomi Oreskes, 1988
— lists summarizes Wegener’s theory, which are as follows:
A. “The continents are composed of less dense material than the ocean basins.”
B. “The material that composes that ocean floor also underlies continents, and the difference in density
between them permits the continents to ‘float’ in hydrostatic equilibrium within the denser oceanic substrate.”
C. “The continents are able to move through the substrate because it behaves over geological time as a
viscous fluid.”
D. “The major geological features of the earth—mountain chains, rift valleys, oceanic island arcs—and
the major geological phenomena—earthquakes and volcanoes—are caused by the horizontal motions and
interactions of the continents. Mountains are formed by the compressions on the leading edges of the
continents.”
E. “Originally, the entire earth was covered in a thin, continuous, continental layer, which gradually
broke apart and subsequently thickened by crumpling of the moving pieces. During the ‘Mesozoic’ era, some of
the major continental pieces were reuinted in a large supercontinent called ‘ Gondwanaland’.”
To summarize even further, Wegener believed that continents were able to float due to the underlying
basaltic substrate — on which the continent floated as it is driven by tidal forces and differential gravitational
effects.

Section 2: Factors of Rejection

2-1. Limitations of Study - The individual could argue that Wegener was not too cemented within the
geological community. Indeed, Wegener found himself only with a few of whom were sympathetic to his
theory, and even fewer who defended it. Wegener was also shackled by the technology and culture of his era.
Unfortunately, Wegener died in 1930 before he was able to complete his theory. Thus, Wegener was only with
a limited amount of deference and assistance, and techniques, technology, and material to properly
substantiate his theory.

2-2. Periodical Mindset and Belief - Wegener first spoke of his findings circa. 1912, where he proposed the
idea of ‘Continental Displacement’, or as we know it — ‘Continental Drifting’. His belief of ‘mobilism’ was
radically different and opposed the widely-accepted belief of permanence. (Newman, 1995) Whilst acceptance
varied from each continent, with the diversified reception in Europe, to the rejection in the United States — it is
possible to elucidate this phenomenon as diverging standards of practice between Americans and Europeans
(Oreskes 1988)
Ethnic prejudice and bias was also prevalent during the period of the theory’s proposal. Due to the
growing political tensions between the Western and German hemispheres of influence — much of the scrutiny
and critiques by Anglo, Franco, and American scientists were laced with the purpose of specifically tearing
down and rejecting the proposals and works by German scientists. Indeed, this was the case during the 1928
conference. (Oreskes)
Wegener faced an entrenched theory which was widely believed, and set as the fundamental on which
further study could be made. He also faced growing hostility and xenophobia due to the growing tensions
between the countries of his respective scientists.

2-3. Critiques of Continental Drift Theory - Whilst indeed, Wegener himself proposed a set of answers,
they are merely suggestions and not a definitive fact. Reactions to his theory were either extremely diverse in
Group 2 Debate Primer - Opposition Party
the case of Europe, or mostly negative in the case of the United States: “-the reason for this was that the
scientific community had difficulty testing the hypothesis rigorously with available techniques and also lacked a
convincing explanatory mechanism” (Giller et al. 2004). Entry 2-2 also touches upon a periodical paradigm
which most likely factored in the opinions of many within and outside the geological community.
His forwarded evidence was also not strictly linked to Continental Drift Theory, but rather, postulated,
yet not proven.
Wegener originally proposed that the “-tidal friction and differential gravitational forces from the
Earth’s oblate shape could drive the motion of the continents.” (Oreskes 1988). However, a majority of
geologists considered these forces to be inadequate for the action, with Chester Longwell stating that: “The
force available for his purpose must be infinitesimally small.”
This proposed driving mechanism was also critiqued by Rachel Laudan, stating that: “The problem
with the drift is not that there was no known mechanism or cause, but that any conceivable mechanism would
conflict with physical theory.” (Oreskes 1988)
The critiques for Continental Drift Theory, of course — covers the entirety of it. Questions could be
raised regarding the correlation of fossil evidence to continental drift, the fitting coastlines of different
continents, and more.

2-4. The Lack of a Plausible Driving Mechanism - Wegener did indeed propose an explanation for the
displacement of landmass. Although he validated it with a substantial amount of evidence, most of which
remain “substantially correct” in the contemporary environment (Oreskes 1988), his explanation for the
driving mechanism was lacking. Originally, he devised that the now viscous substrate which underlies
continents pose as a medium which could move landmass — but his explanation for the initiation of the
movement was rejected by scientists as it was found to be inadequate. (See entry 2-3)
Indeed, this is one of the primary factors which led to the rejection of the Continental Drift Theory.
Although additional individuals within the community produced their own theories which utilized Continental
Drift as their basis, such theories are beyond the scope of this debate. But in the event that such is raised
during, refer to ‘Section 4’ for recommended courses of action.

Section 3: The Debate

3-1. Flow of Movement - The structure of the debate has already been laid out in detail by the teacher. This
structure will be followed and utilized as the basis for our movement. See ‘Section 5’ for recommended verbal
formatting.

3-2. Information Flow - The individual must be cautious of how much information they reveal. Do not
expose more than what is enough to answer, maintain, or drive the debate. Keep in mind that any information
revealed might, and will be used against us.

3-3. The Advocacy - The primary objective of the advocacy, and even our group — is to forward, maintain,
and eventually convince the jury of our factuality. The advocacy will of course — serve as an avatar for the late
Alfred Wegener, justifying and proving the plausibility of his Continental Drift Theory. Thus, the individual
must not in any way agree with the claims of the advocacy, unless the contrary is agreed upon by a majority of
the members.

3-4. Focal Point - The opposition party’s objective is to, as the title states — reason, and justify that the
Continental Drift Theory is false. The party is given agency as to how they might go about doing so, but the
Group 2 Debate Primer - Opposition Party
main focal points to consider are:
1. The Driving Mechanism of Continents - As stated in ‘Section 2’, the main shortcoming of the theory
is the lack of an adequate physical mechanism which allows such a movement of the continents. The individual
is encouraged to exploit this limitation to its greatest, utilizing it as a distraction, and anvil for the Advocacy.
Further details regarding this is seen at ‘Section 2’.
2. The Implausibility of the Proposed Driving Mechanism - Wegener proposed his own elucidation for
the continental movement. However, it is found to be lacking, and was widely rejected by the community. If
put forward in the debate, the individual could point this fact out.
3. Evidence Forwarded by Wegener - Seen at ‘Section 1’, entry 1-2; Wegener forwarded his findings of
evidence which supported his theory. Whilst this might seem like an ace in the hole, keep in mind that
Wegener was not able to prove that these are in fact, a result of his theory in action. Wegener, or any other
scientist for that matter, has not been able to substantiate these pieces of evidence in connection with his
theory. To do the contrary would be merely arriving at a subjective conjecture.
4. Political and Ethnic Spectrum - Whilst there is no denying that this did indeed factor in the reception
of the theory, it is not within the scope of the debate for such political matters are unrelated to the proving of
facts, in that politics in itself is a field where subjectivity is prolific, thus — such pieces of evidence cannot be
substantiated as pieces of evidence.
5. Citation of Additional Theories - The advocacy might utilize additional theories to form the basis for
their argument. This however, is disallowed by the rules and scope of the debate, thus any and all proposals
and arguments which utilizes external theories besides Continental Drift are invalidated, and can be ignored.
(see Section 5 for recommended verbal formatting)
The individual can, however, answer these questions if they possess the ability to do so. If the idea of
the individual is incomplete, then it is recommended for them to defer to other members for guidance and
assistance.

Section 5: Miscellaneous
5-1. Questioning - Listed down are 2 primary, and 1 auxiliary questions which will be utilized as a catalyst
for arguments, they are as follows:
1. In consideration with statements in ‘Section 2’ regarding this specific subject, ask the following - Tie
an explanation for the physical mechanism which permits landmass to ‘float’ or ‘drift’ as Wegener proposes? It
is nigh impossible to correctly answer this question without referring to additional theories regarding this
matter. Any answer will suffice, however — state that the answer is “not satisfactory”.
2. In consideration with the statements made in ‘Sections 1 and 2’ regarding this subject, ask the
following - Substantiate the fact that the evidence forwarded by Wegener to support his theory are indeed
specifically connected with each other. In simpler terms, justify that the pieces of evidence forwarded are
caused by the Continental Drift Theory, and not by other, competing theories?

5-2. Verbal Formatting - For standardization and organization of responses, the following formats are
recommended when making statements:
To disagree: “-however, we politely disagree with this (sentence type) - (continuation).”
To cite: “-(Name of researcher) stated in his/her publication, (Publication title), and I quote-”
If outside of debate scope: “Unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of this debate. Thus, we elect to ignore this
(sentence type), and proceed.”
If statement is unrelated: “Unfortunately, we do not observe a connection or relation between (sentence type),
thus, we elect to ignore, and proceed.”
Group 2 Debate Primer - Opposition Party
References
Carozzi, A. (1985): The Reaction in Europe to Wegener’s Theory of Continental Drift, Earth
Sciences History, 4(2), 122-137.
Nelson, G. (1975): Continental Drift: A Study of the Earth’s Moving Surface, Taylor & Francis,
24(3), 392-394.
Newman, R. (1995): American Intransigence: The Rejection of Continental Drift in the Great
Debates of the 1920's, Earth Sciences History, 14(1), 62-83.
Oreskes, N. (1988): The Rejection of Continental Drift, Historical Studies in the Physical and
Biological Sciences, 18(2), 311-348.
Oreskes, N. (2013): How Plate Tectonics Clicked, Nature, 501, 27-29.
Pellegrini, P. (2019): Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate, Journal for General
Philosophy of Science, 50, 85-102
Schoenbauer, M. (2015): Wegener’s Disadvantage: An Illustration of the Importance of
Universalism in Science, 2-6.
Veeraiyan, V., Nallasamy, D. (2020): Theories of Continental Drift, 17(3), 1,513-1,517.
Wegener, A. (1920): Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane, Vieweg & Son, 66(2), 92-125.
Group 2 Debate Primer - Opposition Party