The Instigator
AlexanderOc
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Anything is possible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
gryephon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 56834
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

AlexanderOc

Pro

First round is acceptance.

Anything shall be defined "Any situation"

Possible shall be defined as "Able to happen"

My claim will be "Any situaion is within this realm of reality"
gryephon

Con

I accept state your case
Debate Round No. 1
AlexanderOc

Pro

My main point being that our knowledge of this reality is limited. As such, we only know what we see and feel. We only know what our senses will allow us to know. So it is possible for a situation to happen that our senses cannot sense. Simply because there are laws we observed with our senses, does not mean it is impossible the laws do not apply to situations that are unable to be sensed.

P1. Humans cannot sense everything
P2. A situation is possible without a human sensing it
C. Any situation is possible

Were my conclusion to stand, it would be impossible to provide a situation that is impossible. Therefore, every situation is possible.
gryephon

Con

P1 → Humans cannot sense everything
P2 → “A” <-[fallacy] situation is possible without a human sensing it
C → “Any” <-[fallacy] situation is possible

Your 2nd premise does not really follow the conclusion. Premise 2 is talking about “a” situation, but the conclusion differs about “any” situation, which includes situations that are not possible. For example, “a” situation might mean someone might have locked the car keys in the car on accident, that is “a” possible situation that could be happening right now. However, there is no situation where you’re going to self-terminate before round 3 because of the things said in this round.

What man would forfeit his soul over to prove my argument wrong? You wouldn’t.


As such, we only know what we see and feel.

I know numbers, and you can’t see nor feel them. I know that 2 + 2 = 4, I also know 4x5=20.

Debate Round No. 2
AlexanderOc

Pro

I flawed the point I was trying to convey in my conclusion, allow me to present a better one.

P1. Any situation is possible if it follows the laws of the universe
P2. Humans use senses and thought to observe laws
P3. Human senses cannot observe everything in the universe
C. It is possible there are laws humans cannot observe

Defense of premise 1

Possible as stated is able to happen. Something is able to happen if it happens in conjunction with the laws of the universe.

Defense of premise 2

The only way we know about laws is by observing their effects with our senses. i.e. Gravity. Thought is the compiling of information from senses, so it is also based off senses.

Defense of premise 3
This is more of a possibility. It is possible there are things we cannot observe, since this is in accordance with the laws of the universe. Keep in mind, I only need to prove possibility. One possibility can lead to another.

Based on this conclusion, let's continue to a new set.

P1. Any situation can be possible if it applies to a universal law humans can't observe
P2. Any situation presented can follow a possible law humans cannot observe
C. Any situation is possible

The main point here is humans cannot possibly know everything with the limitation of our senses. Therefore there can be unobservable laws in which a situation could follow, and as long as the situation follows laws within the universe. A possible rebuttal to this may be " A possible situation would need to follow all laws in the universe, including ones that make it impossible." However a counter would be that there could possibly be laws that nullify other laws that make other laws inapplicable to said situation.

Examples.

A talking Cheeseburger.

There could possibly be a planet where cheeseburgers developed vocal cords which they used to communicate. Possibly.

Nothing exists.

Our senses could be fabricated by nothingness that has properties that do not follow the definition of exist.

I'm not writing this argument.

There is possibly a law that would render my writing of this nullified and non-existent. These words could have been fabricated into your brain by an unobservable force following an unobervable law. Possibly. However not impossible.

Now let me cross-examine con.

"There is no situation where you will self-terminate before round 3..."

False, I could have possibly been so disappointed my claim was so utterly destroyed that I may have saw suicide as a way to ease my suffering. That could have happened, according to the laws of the universe. Simply because it didn't happen doesn't mean it was impossible, only unlikely. Improbable does not equal impossible.

I know numbers, and you can't see nor feel them.

1 <---- Oh look, I see one right there

We know 2+2=4 simply because we can think and create mental situations. As I said, thought is a compilation of senses to make inferences and conclusions.
You wouldn't know 4x5=20 if you never saw the numbers, or heard of them before. They require sense to know exist, then thought to conclude what they would multiply into.

Thank you for the fun debate. I really should have made this an extra round, but I think my case holds enough ground that I won't need a rebuttal.

gryephon

Con






P1. Any situation is possible if it follows the laws of the universe

The topic explicitly states “anything is possible”, however you’re reasoning is more for “any situation is possible, except when it doesn’t follow the laws of the universe.” There shouldn’t be any conditions if your actually arguing “anything is possible”, no “if [condition] it follows the laws”, for that would imply that not following the laws of the universe is impossible.




However a counter would be that there could possibly be laws that nullify other laws that make other laws inapplicable to said situation.

P2 still has a problem with the same premise despite it being revised. To note revising is technically “case shifting”, in most circles of debate the conduct is looked down upon negatively. Though I’m uncertain with DDO policies on case shifting.

That would be your burden of proof to prove that nullifying XYZ law is possible. I’m pretty certain you’re not talking about moral\culture laws that criminals can break, but observable laws of the universe (e.g. law of gravity, motion, Thermodynamics, et cetera). Without demonstration of a law being broken you as pro do have a problem with the burden of proof on the resolution. You would be confirming an antecedent that it is possible, something you can’t prove without empirical demonstration.

None of the examples you gave (e.g. Nothing exist, talking cheeseburger, not writing this) are empirically provable. If it’s not empirical, it fails to uphold "Any situaion is within this realm of reality", because you would have to prove that talking cheeseburgers are real (realm of reality), and not something you made up (realm of imagination) to give your examples some fluff.



A talking Cheeseburger. There could possibly be a planet where cheeseburgers developed vocal cords which they used to communicate. Possibly.

Nope, not possible. The organic composition would be way too inconsistent with each other to be all from one species. Beef comes from cow, tomato comes from a plant, and pickles come from cucumber which comes from a plant. All the ingredients don’t last long enough to support life, usually when vegetables are taken from the plant they start dying. Also, cheeseburgers don’t usually have a long enough life span to evolve with vocal cords, for their eaten shortly after being made, as that is their sole purpose in life, to be devoured.



Nothing exists.

That is a self-contradicting statement. “Nothing” itself does not exist, at least it means a lack of existence with things (hence no+thing), yet the next word states it does. What do you mean doesn’t follow the definition of exist? If it doesn’t follow the definition, it’s not exist, it’s something else.




False, I could have possibly been so disappointed my claim was so utterly destroyed that I may have saw suicide as a way to ease my suffering. That could have happened, according to the laws of the universe. Simply because it didn't happen doesn't mean it was impossible, only unlikely. Improbable does not equal impossible.

You're a FOOL! Seriously, You would sacrifice your own life because you can’t take a rebuke in a debate? No intelligent person would do that! Get wisdom! Get sense! Get intelligence! And don’t die on me like a poor dumb fool! Debate is not worth it.




1 <---- Oh look, I see one right there

That is a visual representation of a number expressed by Arabic numerals, not necessary the number itself. Numbers don’t exist, you don’t actually see them, but a symbolic representation of them. You only know the meaning of the symbol “1” because you were taught it, but if I showed you numbers from a foreign language (e.g. the Japanese , or Hebrew ת״ש) you may not understand them because you were not initially taught them.

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
It didn't think it mattered how "silly" an example was, as long as it proved a point. Simply because an example was not intricately designed to meet your high maturity standards does not make it worthless. To right it off as such can be seen as an attempt to avoid dealing with the argument the example makes.

I saw a talking cheeseburger as a simple and easy way to convey a point. If everyone on the internet was as intellectually capable as some of the top debaters on this site, then perhaps I would have provide a deeper example to satisfy maturity standards of people such as yourself.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
The fact that you used a silly object to attempt to lay ground to the possibility of intelligent speech in itself depicts your argument juvenile & worthless. But this is your debate and if you choose to use goofy examples as topics of contemplation, so be it, I'm bowing out from further such comments.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
@Gogert777

No disrespect sir but if school has taught me anything it's to avoid vague online requests to privately "Talk to me about some things."

Thanks for the invite regardless. If you mean to talk about my logical reason then by all means, challenge me to a debate.
Posted by Gogert777 2 years ago
Gogert777
Alex, i think i should contact you using skype or something. I would like to talk to you about some things :)
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
@ShadowKingStudios

First of all, can you completely say for a fact that there is a portion of our universe that those 3 ingredients developed properties that allowed for speech? Of course not. Nobody can. A talking Cheesebuger is an unfalsifyable object, much like a dragon. You can't prove that it can't exist, even though you can't prove it does.

It is also completely possible that the Earth has sometype of force field around it that, upon being thrown into the sun, would leave it unscaved.

You are correct in saying "Any situation is possible in a hypothetical scenario where an improbable limit, restriction, disadvantage or advantage is applied." That's my point. It doesn't matter if the hypothetical limit/restriction is improbable, as long as it's possible.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
The cheeseburger was invented by humans therefore since it being a human conception of taking cooked beef, applying cheese, and placing them between wheat buns it isn't possible three different sources (cow meat, curd milk, processed wheat grain) of the same foods (meat, cheese, bread) that we have on earth invented themselves then combined as one, able to develop speech abilities and become the very concept of a human invention.

It's possible for the earth to be hurled into the sun and become incinerated with each one's current vulnerability.
It isn't possible for the earth, after hurled into the sun, to be unscratched with each one's current vulnerability.
Any situation is possible in a hypothetical scenario where an improbable limit, restriction, disadvantage or advantage is applied.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
I edited the definitions, any better?
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
"[any possible interaction between two objects] is possible"?
Posted by Sargon 2 years ago
Sargon
The resolution is equivalent to saying "Any possible interaction between two objects is possible", so you've defined yourself into victory.
Posted by TheYummyCod 2 years ago
TheYummyCod
Heh, you made it too obvious, Pro.

Nobody will accept your debate unless they fail to read your definitions, which automatically declare you the winner.

You could've made it even more obvious by making the topic: "Anything possible is possible".
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
AlexanderOcgryephonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The fact that you used a silly object to attempt to lay ground to the possibility of intelligent speech in itself depicts your argument juvenile & worthless. In my view, this killed you. I thought this was going to be a tough one, but Con cleaned the floor with you. Respectfully.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
AlexanderOcgryephonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con effectively rebutted pro's proof of anything being possible and also proved pro's logic false