The Instigator
Sitar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DebatyDebateMaster
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Can you prove a negative?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 94353
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Sitar

Pro

Pro means yes and Con means no. My opponent will make the first argument.
DebatyDebateMaster

Con

0-1=-1

Mathematical proof that negatives exist
Debate Round No. 1
Sitar

Pro

No trolling alloed. Prove me wrong. This debate is about whether you can prove a negative, and is based on the concept that negatives exist, The sun is not cold, cats are not dogs, dark is not light.
DebatyDebateMaster

Con

I can prove that cats are not dogs because they are not the same species. Plus, you can't change definitions after the opening argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Sitar

Pro

I have not changed anything, stay on topic. I have already proven that you can prove a negative. The sun is not cold.
DebatyDebateMaster

Con

To me, the sun is cold. Your argument is subjective
Debate Round No. 3
Sitar

Pro

No trolling allowed. The sun is not cold. Just go out in the hot sun for proof.
DebatyDebateMaster

Con

That's a SUBJECTIVE argument. The sun is not, not cold. I disproved your negative.
Debate Round No. 4
Sitar

Pro

Youy have the right to your opinion. It is an objective fact that the sun is not cold. Just stand in the sun's rays to know this.
DebatyDebateMaster

Con

I may have a condition that makes me feel the sun rays as cold. You can never prove a negative, because there is no burden of disproof.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Matthiu23 10 months ago
Matthiu23
Negatives aren't numbers they are expressions.. BOOM! the first example given was that 0-1=-1... yes it does.. -1 always implies an expression of n-1.. thus the 1 is always a positive number being subtracted. There is no such thing as a "negative" number. Try to throw it into an equation. 1+-1... well that's 1-1.. you have positive one now take away positive one. How about 0-1? You have none now take away positive 1. What's the answer? It's actually still 0 because you didn't have one so you can't take one away.. taking away one doesn't create the anti existence of one that you didn't have.. let's say you have no apples and i take an apple from you. Did I take an apple from you or create an anti apple that you now have a negative apple? No.. you could say that when you get an apple you owe me but it's referencing a positive apple. You never did have -1 apple.
Posted by BackCommander 1 year ago
BackCommander
"In order for something to be true, it must not be false. Therefore, if anything is true, then so are negatives."
A false conclusion. By your logic, the fact that an apple exists proves that unicorns, leprechauns, and werewolves exist.
Posted by Iamsmarter 1 year ago
Iamsmarter
In order for something to be true, it must not be false. Therefore, if anything is true, then so are negatives.
Posted by BackCommander 1 year ago
BackCommander
The problem here is Pro's lack of definitions to be used in this debate. As it is Pro could win by simply linking to a page about negative numbers.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
the scientific method only admits for universal negatives " in science, you can only falsify something completely, not confirm it completely. Something is judged to be true because it stands to the test of falsifiability extensively enough to be unassailable. But failing one single test disqualifies a specific principle from being accepted.
Posted by Emmarie 1 year ago
Emmarie
@philochristus - I agree Pro would have to make an argument for con to argue against, or con will be negating a negative.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
This debate puts Con in a conundrum. He's got to prove the negative position. If he fails, then he loses the debate. But if he succeeds, then he also loses the debate since he will have proved a negative.
No votes have been placed for this debate.