3 divided by 0 equals 3  Debate Two
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Valkrin
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  11/21/2014  Category:  Philosophy  
Updated:  2 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  1,272 times  Debate No:  65630 
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (1)
I wish to debate spex on this topic once more (only once), as he still seems unconvinced about this. By agreeing to the debate you agree to the following: 72 hours to argue, 8,000 characters max per argument. Any offensive content, including, but not limited to, swearing, derogatory language, and insulting will result in a forfeiture of the debate by the offender. If you wish to state the definition, feel free, but only use sources to define and not your own words. Examples of sources include searching on Google "_______ definition", dictionary.com, and merriamwebster.com. Cite all definitions. R1: Pro's acceptance statement. (i.e. at least an "I accept this debate", and any questions regarding rules set up that may need to be changed). R2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals). R3: Rebuttals. R4: Second round of rebuttals. R5: Conclusion from both sides. Failure to comply to the rules results in a forfeiture of the debate. BoP is on Pro. Best of luck if you decide to accept.
3 sodas shared by no people, is 3 sodas, as the didn't get shared, its like saying don't divide these 3 sodas I have on the table, and what do you have, 3 sodas 

Pro fails to follow the rules I have set in place, and instead heads straight to his argument. Nonetheless I shall refute it, and note that any future failure to comply in the rules set results in a forfeiture by Pro.
Imagine this: you have 10 sodas. You bring those sodas over to a table where your five friends sit. You say "OK, divide these amongst yourselves." Then you walk away. Each person would take two sodas. 10 (sodas) / 5 (people) = 2 (sodas per person). Now, you have 10 sodas. You bring those 10 sodas over to a table where zero friends sit. You say "OK, divide these amongst yourselves." Then you walk away. How is it possible that I can divide 10 sodas amongst zero people and get ten? 10 (sodas) / 0 (people) = undefined (no sodas can be given out as it is impossible). The sodas don't disappear and the sodas aren't destroyed. They still sit there on the table. But you have to realize the answer to a division problem is how many of x item each person gets. If 0 people are there, how can they get 10 sodas? As well, type 10/0 into a calculator. If it gives 10 you're right. If it gives any other answer I am right. If you confidently believe after all this 10/0 = 10, then please refute. I'm interesting in hearing your arguments. Best of luck in round two. Remember this is opening arguments, no rebuttals.
i have said this many times m8, you can not divide with 0 and 1 its impossible to share 3 sodas with yourself, yet 3/1=3 why? 3/1=3 is a false equation, but 3 is a true answer this is the true equation as it can only happen in reality, 3/1(3), like saying don't divide these sodas on the table, nothing happens 

To refute, 3/1=3 is an actual equation. You are doing 3 (sodas) / (divided amongst) 1 (1 person) and you get 3.
As well, opponent states it is impossible to divide with 0. Isn't he going against his original argument? If it is impossible to divide by zero how do I get three? If I put three sodas on the table, where one friend was, and said "Divide these amongst yourselves" and left, the one friend would get all three sodas. Hence, 3/1=3. However, as I stated in my original argument, if I put three sodas on the table where zero people are, then say "Divide these amongst yourselves" and left, nobody would get any sodas. There are no people there that can divide them! Therefore 3/0 = undefined, as it is impossible. Best of luck in R3.
im not saying 3/1=3 is not an equation but its a false equation as it cant happen, it can not equal anything because the action of dividing cant happen you can not divide with 1, 1 person can not share anything in the world with only himself 

"im not saying 3/1=3 is not an equation but its a false equation as it cant happen, it can not equal anything because the action of dividing cant happen" This is the case with 3/0, not 3/1. 3/1 is still a legitimate equation that is able to happen. "1 person can not share anything in the world with only himself" Some division problems actually require the person themselves to divide. If I have 50,000 dollars (which I don't...) and I split it equally into two different categories, save and spend, wouldn't I be dividing with myself? All of the money is still there, just in different categories. 50,000 (dollars) / (divided into) 2 (categories) = 25,000 dollars per category. I would still have the money but it would be split into different categories. If there were 0 categories to divide it into, I still have the money, I never said I didn't. They just simply can't be divided. And to answer your questions in the comments: "hmm, its like this, i have 2 pencils on my desk, and now i add 1, so i have 3, now i take the tree and divide them no times, and now i add 1 more pencil, how many pencils do i have on my desk?" In return let me ask you a question: If I had three sodas, put them out in front of zero people, and asked them to divide it amongst themselves, and walk away. A while later, I return with another soda. How many sodas would there be? I did no division. It is impossible to divide with zero. As such, no division took place and the sodas are still there. No destruction, just no division. I could not divide by zero as there was no one to divide it between. So if I add a soda, I would have four. If it is impossible to divide by zero, then why would 3/0=3, as Pro says? Awaiting R4's arguments.
you are dividing the money into groups, so that would be 50.000 divided into 2 groups. but lets say you have both these pots of 25.000, are you sharing them with anyone? not by that equation 1 tree divided by itself is 1 tree, 1 tree divided by nothing is 1 tree, its the equivalent of saying 1 tree not divided is 1 tree, or don't divide that 1 tree, same, it doesn't disappear and its not undefined dividing with 1 is impossible, if you divide the 50.000 into 1 group, how many times have you divided it? and did you lose all your money by not dividing them? no you would have 4 sodas in your example, 3 on the table and 1 in your hand possibly "If it is impossible to divide by zero, then why would 3/0=3, as Pro says?" the thing I claim is, 3/0 does not equal 3, because the equation dosnt go through, if it did, something would become nothing and then go back to being something, which is literally impossible in reality, so the equation is not true, it can not be, therefore 3/0, is just 3, or 3/0(3) its the same with this, 1+0 does not equal 1, it simply is 1, and nothing happens, therfore 1+0 just means this 1, or 1+0(1) to reveal that it cant happen 

"the thing I claim is, 3/0 does not equal 3, because the equation dosnt go through" Opponent says here that 3/0 does not equal 3, therefore what he's arguing for is wrong, as he said! Thank you for the debate!
it doesn't equal 3 in an equation, but as I say this, 3 divided by 0 is 3, is true because that's the only way to say it the thing about equations are they are very rigid, but saying 3 divided by 0 is 3, I could be saying 3 divided by 0 is 3 because the equation doesn't go through, would fit, as its language not math, its an explanation not an equation 3/0(3) should be the headline and don't forget, you wrote that headline when challenging me to this debate :) 
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Valkrin  vi_spex  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  5  0 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything to Con except for sources, seeing as neither side used any. Arguments because clearly, as shown through Con's arguments, 3 divided by 0 does not equal 3. Conduct because Pro did not follow instructions in round 1. Spelling and Grammar because I simply can't follow Pro's logic and writing.
division=fair separation=sharing
@vi_spex
Division has nothing to do with sharing. You aren't sharing with yourself, like I said to Valkrin, you do not exist in the equation, the group does. You are splitting the 4 into a single group, meaning the group will have sodas in it.
numbers are defined by existence, the absolutes, if the value of the number 1 couldnt exist i couldnt possible have a hand and a coke in my hand
you cant divide 4 by 1, as 1 person cant share 4 sodas with himself, therefore the equation dosnt go through
1 blue table and 1 green table is 2 tables
That's what I meant, sorry if it wasn't clear.