I will not contradict myself.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
MTGandP
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  7/12/2009  Category:  Miscellaneous  
Updated:  7 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  1,344 times  Debate No:  8952 
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)
Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rules: 1. In Rounds 13, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 24, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 24, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 11. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online MerriamWebster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriamwebster.com... Good luck.
1. Do you have any proofs for relatively wellknown unproven conjectures? 2. Does an omnipotent* God exist? (*having unlimited power or ability) 3. Does an omniscient* God exist? (*having total knowledge) 4. Can God create a being more powerful than himself? 5. Do humans have free will? 6. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over security? 7. Assuming perfectly accurate instruments, is it possible to, with perfect accuracy, observe both the momentum and position of a fundamental particle at some given time? 8. When in conflict, should human life be valued over liberty? 9. Assuming that you and I are equally fast at all fundamental operations: is it possible for you to write answers that follow the rules and have no contradictions in the same amount of time that it takes me to find any rule breaks/contradictions by you, assuming that I am trying to optimize my speed? 10. Are there more real numbers (sqrt(2), pi, etc) than there are integers (3, 5, 2, etc)? 

"1. Do you have any proofs for relatively wellknown unproven conjectures?"
No. "2. Does an omnipotent* God exist? (*having unlimited power or ability)" If "unlimited" includes the logically impossible, then no. Otherwise, yes. "3. Does an omniscient* God exist? (*having total knowledge)" If "total" includes that which cannot be known, then no. Otherwise, yes. "4. Can God create a being more powerful than himself?" No. "5. Do humans have free will?" To an extent. "6. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over security?" There should be a balance between liberty and security, so it would have to depend on the situation. People should have their entire lives regulated by government, but at the same time, we should have a justice system. "7. Assuming perfectly accurate instruments, is it possible to, with perfect accuracy, observe both the momentum and position of a fundamental particle at some given time?" It would obviously depend on what instruments you use. A perfectly accurate thermometer and a perfectly accurate scale aren't going to help you much. "8. When in conflict, should human life be valued over liberty?" Yes. "9. Assuming that you and I are equally fast at all fundamental operations: is it possible for you to write answers that follow the rules and have no contradictions in the same amount of time that it takes me to find any rule breaks/contradictions by you, assuming that I am trying to optimize my speed?" Yes. "10. Are there more real numbers (sqrt(2), pi, etc) than there are integers (3, 5, 2, etc)?" Within a given range with a different maximum and minimum, there are more real numbers, but technically, there is an infinite number of both.
I am unsatisfied with the responses to questions 5 ("to an extent" is vague), 7 (you know what I meant by "instrument", don't avoid the question (though I can understand your reasoning, since I might have been trying to trick you, although I wasn't in this case)), and 10 (I'm talking about all real numbers and all integers; "there are an infinite number of both" does not answer the original question). Pro has failed to answer question 10 at all, resulting in my victory. Nevertheless, I will continue. ======== Contradiction One: #1 and #9 In #9, by answering "yes", Pro has assumed that P=NP (http://en.wikipedia.org...), an unproven conjecture. However, in #1, he stated that he does not have any proofs for unproven conjectures, so he could not possibly know if P=NP. I think that in this context, the meaning of "write" is clear enough. But before Pro tries anything tricky, I wish to define "write". I do not mean "to inscribe in print", but instead I mean "to compose and set down", which entails coming up with an idea for an answer and then writing it down. Contradiction Two: #2 and #4 Pro cleverly avoided some problems by stating that God cannot do the logically impossible. However, it is not logically impossible to create a being more powerful than oneself. I reserve the right to later point out further contradictions from round 2. ======== 11. Can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it? 12. Are you capable of correctly answering the rest of the questions, provided that a correct answer is possible? 13. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over safety? 14. Should the government be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives? 15. Do you believe that the Bible is truth? 16. Do you believe that citizens convicted of murder should be imprisoned in most cases? 17. Imagine a set that contains all sets that aren't members of themselves. Does it contain itself? 18. Is the distribution of prime numbers truly random? 19. Do you agree with all your stands on the BIG issues? 20. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong in the first trimester of pregnancy? 

"I am unsatisfied with the responses to questions 5..."
By "to an extent," I mean, we don't lack free will completely, but at the same time, we don't have complete free will over everything that happens to us. "...7..." Alright, then. I'll just say, yes. "Pro has failed to answer question 10 at all, resulting in my victory." Wrong. I have an answer. "Within a given range with a different maximum and minimum, there are more real numbers, but technically, there is an infinite number of both." So, it is yes in the first situation, but no in the second situation. "In #9, by answering 'yes', Pro has assumed that P=NP..." What? Could you explain the relationship between #9 and P=NP? Furthermore, it asks if something is possible, and I can write answers in anywhere from ten seconds to a large number of minutes, while finding contradictions could be done within that range of time. So, P could equal NP, technically, so there is no contradiction. "However, in #1, he stated that he does not have any proofs for unproven conjectures, so he could not possibly know if P=NP." But it is possible that P=NP. Plus, one can't have proofs for unproven conjectures, as that is a contradiction in itself. I do know that P could be equal to NP, because I know hardly anything at all about the situation. "However, it is not logically impossible to create a being more powerful than oneself." Not when "oneself" happens to have infinite power. At that point, it is logically impossible to create a being with higher than the highest infinite power. "11. Can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" No. "12. Are you capable of correctly answering the rest of the questions, provided that a correct answer is possible?" Yes. "13. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over safety?" Again, a balance is needed. We shouldn't wall ourselves in our houses all day, but we shouldn't run out in the woods naked. "14. Should the government be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives?" To an extent. Government shouldn't know what you're doing every second of your life, but they should be aware of your residence, your employment, etc. "15. Do you believe that the Bible is truth?" Yes. "16. Do you believe that citizens convicted of murder should be imprisoned in most cases?" That would have to depend on the ratio of cases in which imprisonment is acceptable and cases in which the death penalty is acceptable. "17. Imagine a set that contains all sets that aren't members of themselves. Does it contain itself?" Yes. "18. Is the distribution of prime numbers truly random?" No. "19. Do you agree with all your stands on the BIG issues?" Assuming that we define the BIG issues however I please. "20. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong in the first trimester of pregnancy?" Yes.
Pro has adequately answered questions 5, 7 and 10. P=NP Problem The P=NP problem asks this: if the answer to a problem can be VERIFIED in polynomial time (as opposed to exponential time), can the answer also be DEDUCED in polynomial time? This is a rather famous unproven conjecture. But by asserting that yes, if the answer can be verified (by me) in polynomial time, it can also be deduced (by Pro) in polynomial time, Pro has assumed that he has a proof that P=NP. Yet he stated that he does not have any such proof. Contradiction. <<<"However, it is not logically impossible to create a being more powerful than oneself." Not when "oneself" happens to have infinite power. At that point, it is logically impossible to create a being with higher than the highest infinite power.>>> Not true. One infinity can be greater than another, as proven by Georg Cantor. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_diagonal_argument Also, there is no highest infinity: a higher infinity can always be found. ======== Contradiction Three: #17 ("Russell's Paradox" http://en.wikipedia.org...) If this set contains itself, then it is not a set that is not a member of itself, and it should not contain itself. If the set does contain itself, it follows that it does not contain itself, which contradicts Pro's claim; and yet it directly follows from Pro's claim. Pro has contradicted himself. Contradiction Four: #1 and #18 ("Riemann Hypothesis" http://en.wikipedia.org...) The distribution of the primes is directly linked to the Riemann Hypothesis, possibly the most famous unproven conjecture. If the primes are distributed randomly, it is because the Riemann Hypothesis is true; if they are not distributed randomly, it is because the Riemann Hypothesis is false. Pro seems to know that the Riemann Hypothesis is false, which contradicts #1. Contradiction Five: #6 and #14 Pro stated that "[p]eople should have their entire lives regulated by government" and he also stated that "[the government should be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives] [t]o an extent." This is a clear contradiction. Contradiction Six: #15 The Bible offers two alternate creation stories. They cannot both be true, but Pro has claimed that they are. ======== 21. Is your answer to #7 correct? 22. Is your answer to #10 correct? 23. Are the widely accepted laws of physics pretty much accurate? 24. Is it possible that some choice of four integers greater than two, let's call them a, b, c and n, make this equation work? a^n + b^n = c^n 25. Can every even integer greater than 2 be written as a sum of two prime numbers? 26. Are you going to fail to answer this question with a positive statement (yes, definitely, of course, etc.)? 27. Is your answer to #2 necessarily correct? 28. Can God design an ideal voting system? 29. Do you agree with Richard Dawkins on anything? 30. Is war sometimes justified? 

"But by asserting that yes, if the answer can be verified (by me) in polynomial time, it can also be deduced (by Pro) in polynomial time, Pro has assumed that he has a proof that P=NP. Yet he stated that he does not have any such proof. Contradiction."
Ah, but I am saying that something is possible. I believe that P=NP could possibly be true. Your question asked for possibility. Plus, why should I need a proof for something I believe to be true. I can believe what can't be proven. There is no contradiction, on the grounds that possibility requires disproving, not proving, and I don't need a proof to say something. Oh, and another thing. One can't have a proof for an unproven conjecture, because a proof would make the unproven conjecture proven. "Not true. One infinity can be greater than another, as proven by Georg Cantor. Also, there is no highest infinity: a higher infinity can always be found." http://en.wikipedia.org... There is controversy about Cantor. Also, it is not logically possible to be more powerful than something that can do all things logically possible. How can something logically do more than what is logically possible? God's omnipotence allows him to do anything logically possible, so for something to be more powerful than God, it would have to be able to do the logically possible and the logically impossible, which is logically impossible. "If this set contains itself, then it is not a set that is not a member of itself, and it should not contain itself." Wrong. It contains all sets that do not contain themselves, but it also contains sets that do contain themselves. You never said it couldn't contain sets that contain themselves. Therefore, no contradiction. "Pro seems to know that the Riemann Hypothesis is false, which contradicts #1." I don't know that my answer is true. It was an educated guess, based on a few other conjectures that I looked up. Therefore, I have no proofs, but I believe that the Riemann Hypothesis is false. Again, no proof, but a guess, and therefore, no contradiction. "Pro stated that '[p]eople should have their entire lives regulated by government' and he also stated that '[the government should be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives] [t]o an extent.' This is a clear contradiction." I see no contradiction. My intact life is regulated by government, as in, the government stops me from killing my neighbor. The government knows what my phone number is, but they don't know my email password. The two conditions are satisfied without contradiction. "The Bible offers two alternate creation stories. They cannot both be true, but Pro has claimed that they are." My opponent claims this to be true, but gives no sources. "21. Is your answer to #7 correct?" I don't know. "22. Is your answer to #10 correct?" Yes. "23. Are the widely accepted laws of physics pretty much accurate?" I don't know all of the widely accepted laws of physics, but the ones I know are pretty much accurate. I'm not going to vouch for what I don't even know. "24. Is it possible that some choice of four integers greater than two, let's call them a, b, c and n, make this equation work? a^n + b^n = c^n" No. "25. Can every even integer greater than 2 be written as a sum of two prime numbers?" I think so, but I can't be sure. "26. Are you going to fail to answer this question with a positive statement (yes, definitely, of course, etc.)?" Probably. "27. Is your answer to #2 necessarily correct?" Yes. "28. Can God design an ideal voting system?" Yes. "29. Do you agree with Richard Dawkins on anything?" Yes. "30. Is war sometimes justified?" Yes.
Pro has tried to weasel out of a contradiction by saying that he only stated that P=NP is POSSIBLY true. However, to even know if it is possibly true he would have to know that P=NP. "One can't have a proof for an unproven conjecture, because a proof would make the unproven conjecture proven." What I meant was widely known to be unproven. "There is controversy about Cantor." Only from people who refuse to accept the fact that some infinities are greater than others. Cantor PROVED it. Twice. There is no controversy to be had. "Also, it is not logically possible to be more powerful than something that can do all things logically possible." With a greater infinity, it is indeed possible. "It contains all sets that do not contain themselves, but it also contains sets that do contain themselves. You never said it couldn't contain sets that contain themselves. Therefore, no contradiction." Pro does not understand set theory. Sets contain what we say they contain, and nothing else. Therefore, contradiction. "I don't know that my answer is true. It was an educated guess, based on a few other conjectures that I looked up. Therefore, I have no proofs, but I believe that the Riemann Hypothesis is false." That's not what you said. You clearly asserted that it IS false by saying "no". "I see no contradiction. My intact life is regulated by government, as in, the government stops me from killing my neighbor. The government knows what my phone number is, but they don't know my email password." Your email password is included in your "entire life". So the government should know it. But they shouldn't. Contradiction. Since this is only an example, and examples tend to be weak, I remind the reader of the original statements: "people should have their ENTIRE lives regulated by the government"; "'[the government should be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives] to an EXTENT." Biblical Contradictions: http://www.infidels.org... ======== <<<"21. Is your answer to #7 correct?" I don't know.>>> This is not a yes, no, or explanation as to why neither is applicable. Con wins. Contradiction Seven: #12 and #22 <<<"22. Is your answer to #10 correct?" Yes.>>> It is not correct. Cantor proved that the set of reals is greater than the set of integers. This contradicts the answer for #12. Contradiction Eight: #1 and #25 Pro says "I can't be sure", implying that he knows that question #25 is unprovable. He cannot know this. Contradiction Nine: #1 and #27 Pro cannot possibly know that an omnipotent God exists. Contradiction Ten: #2 and #28 An ideal voting system is logically impossible. God cannot do the logically impossible. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_impossibility_theorem, http://www.tulane.edu...) Contradiction Eleven: #8 and #30 Pro states that life should be valued over liberty, but he also states that war is sometimes justified. War is the fight for liberty (be it territorial liberty, liberty from oppression, liberty to resources, etc.) at the expense of life. However, in #8, Pro states that life is always to be valued over liberty, implying that war is never justified. Contradiction. ======== Just for fun, I am going to try and explain Cantor's proof. To determine if two sets are equal, we try to match each member of one set to a member of the other set. If at least one member of set A cannot be matched to a member of set B, set A is greater than set B. Create a list of every positive integer. (It's trivial to prove that the set of integers equals the set of positive integers, so that difference is irrelevant.) This list is infinitely long. Now match up every real number to an integer. I can prove that there are more real numbers than integers by showing that in the mapping between real numbers and integers, we missed at least one real number. To simplify, let's assume that these numbers are in binary. So every digit is a zero or a one. The real numbers have an infinitely long decimal expansion of zeros and ones. So what we do is take a diagonal through the decimals of the real numbers. Choose the ones digit of the first number, the halves digit of the second number, the fourths digit of the third number, the eighths digit of the fourth number, and repeat infinitely many times. Now take every digit in this diagonal lis and turn every zero into a one and every one into a zero. This results in a number which differs from every single other number on the list in at least one decimal place. We have created a number in the set of the reals that cannot be matched up to an integer. QED. 

"Pro has tried to weasel out of a contradiction by saying that he only stated that P=NP is POSSIBLY true. However, to even know if it is possibly true he would have to know that P=NP."
Is it possible that P=NP? Yes. Does P=NP? I don't know. Therefore, because the question asked if something was possible, it's really just asking, "Could P=NP?" The answer, of course, is yes. "With a greater infinity, it is indeed possible." However, there is a limit to the infinity. You assume that we're dealing with infinities, when we're really dealing with maximums. It is impossible to be more powerful than an omnipotent being, because there is no power that could be added to omnipotence. "Sets contain what we say they contain, and nothing else." You never said that. This box contains three pennies. Does that mean that it cannot contain a watch? No. "That's not what you said. You clearly asserted that it IS false by saying 'no'." No, I asserted that I believe it to be false. Furthermore, it isn't truly random, as there are some patterns, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Obviously, they aren't truly random. There are some laws as to what is a prime number. After all, you'll never see a prime number with a 0 in the one's place. That wasn't just randomness. So, the Riemann Hypothesis probably doesn't say that all prime numbers are distributed truly randomly, because then we'd have a multiple of ten as a prime number, but that cannot happen. "Your email password is included in your 'entire life'." Entire  Intact http://www.merriamwebster.com... The definition of "entire" that I use does not contradict the phrase "to an extent." You are obviously using a different definition for "entire." "Biblical Contradictions..." Obviously, I cannot refute every single point made on the website my opponent cited, as that would take a ridiculously long time for responding to what my opponent didn't even write. However, I will refute a few: "What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial? MAT 27:28 scarlet JOH 19:2 purple" The robe could have easily been both scarlet and purple. "What did they give him to drink? MAT 27:34 vinegar MAR 15:23 wine with myrrh" He could have had both. "Do you answer a fool? PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." This one is so obvious; it doesn't deserve to be on that site. The first proverb tells what you should do if you are a fool. The second proverb tells what you should do if you are wise. "This is not a yes, no, or explanation as to why neither is applicable. Con wins." I shouldn't answer yes, and I shouldn't answer no, because I don't know the answer. I don't know whether or not I was correct. "I don't know" is a very simple, but fulfilling explanation. "It is not correct. Cantor proved that the set of reals is greater than the set of integers. This contradicts the answer for #12." If you had one man count all real numbers, and another count all integers, then neither would ever finish. My opponent does not source Cantor's proof. He obviously did not count all real numbers or all integers, so the two men who never finish counting are a reliable primary source. Also, the definition of "correct": "conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values." http://www.merriamwebster.com...[2] This is the ideology of one sole infinity. "Correct" is really subjective. "Pro says 'I can't be sure', implying that he knows that question #25 is unprovable[sic]. He cannot know this." Well, I can't be sure now, because I don't have any proofs in any direction of anything. There is very little that I can be sure of, and most of the questions in this debate are not among them. "Pro cannot possibly know that an omnipotent God exists." There is such thing as knowledge without proof. It's called religion. In fact, knowledge is very often without proof. I read a textbook, and I memorize some facts that I now know. However, is there a proof in the textbook that the statements are true? No. "An ideal voting system is logically impossible." Here's an idea: Everybody votes on what they want to be done. Suddenly, everybody has their own alternate dimension in which their vote wins. Therefore, everybody has their own ideal world, from this ideal voting system. "Pro states that life should be valued over liberty, but he also states that war is sometimes justified." Sometimes, war is not just about liberty, but about life. In Ultimate Team War, for example, you have two teams, and Team PRO wants to eliminate Team CON. Team CON wants to live, so Team CON declares war on Team PRO. It is not liberty they fight for, but life. Therefore, no contradiction. Now, when looking at Cantor's proof, I see one problem. "Create a list of every positive integer." This is impossible. ;) In conclusion, I have refuted all of my opponent's contradictions, so vote PRO!
The original question: "9. Assuming that you and I are equally fast at all fundamental operations: is it possible for you to write answers that follow the rules and have no contradictions in the same amount of time that it takes me to find any rule breaks/contradictions by you, assuming that I am trying to optimize my speed?" Pro has asserted that it is possible; for this assertion, he must know that P=NP. Pro is trying to bend the meaning of the original statement. "However, there is a limit to the infinity." There is no limit to an infinity. This is definitional. "You assume that we're dealing with infinities, when we're really dealing with maximums." God's power has no maximum. It is infinite. Integers have no maximum, and yet there are more real numbers than integers. " 'Sets contain what we say they contain, and nothing else.' You never said that." I don't have to. That's just how set theory works. "Furthermore, [prime distribution] isn't truly random, as there are some patterns . . . " That's not really a pattern. The only "pattern" is that the difference between primes is always even (except with 2). Also, random events still show certain distributions. If you flip a coin, the outcome is random, but you'll still expect to get half heads and half tails. Knowledge about whether the prime number distribution is truly random requires knowing whether the Riemann Hypothesis is true (Music of the Primes by Marcus du Sautoy). Pro is asserting that the Riemann Hypothesis is false. This contradicts #1. By claiming that it does not contradict #1, Pro is claiming to know more about mathematics than the world's greatest number theorists, which is clearly false. "So, the Riemann Hypothesis probably doesn't say that all prime numbers are distributed truly randomly, because then we'd have a multiple of ten as a prime number, but that cannot happen." That doesn't make any sense . . . It is worth clarifying that just because something is truly random does not mean it can be anything. For example, if you flip a coin, there could be a truly random selection between heads or tails. Pro's assertion is equivalent to the assertion that since a coin cannot land on a three, it is not truly random. However, coins do not land on numbers; they land on heads or tails. But they can still be truly random.  "Entire  Intact" For life to be intact, it must include all aspects, including your email password as well as everything else. The contradiction stands. 1. Scarlet and purple are conflicting. 2. More than one course? Absurd! But really, that one was pretty easy to refute. 3. I'm not sure I understand this one. Why should this difference be made if you're a fool or if you're wise? (How do you know which one you are?) My opponent has cherrypicked these Biblical contradictions. A better one to refute would have been the fact that there are two different creation myths. "I shouldn't answer yes, and I shouldn't answer no, because I don't know the answer. I don't know whether or not I was correct. 'I don't know' is a very simple, but fulfilling explanation." I do not find it very fulfilling. It seems like it's dodging the question. You could have at least said, "I cannot answer this, as I do not know the answer." That would have been more clear. "If you had one man count all real numbers, and another count all integers, then neither would ever finish." True. But the set of reals is still greater than the set of integers. "My opponent does not source Cantor's proof." Other than my explanation (which may not be very good), I did cite a Wikipedia page a couple of rounds back. "Also, the definition of 'correct': 'conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values.' http://www.merriamwebster.com......[2] This is the ideology of one sole infinity. "Correct" is really subjective." This is unsound since it begs the question. Additionally, if that is really Pro's ideology, then he answered incorrectly to numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, since none of those follow from his ideology that there is one sole infinity. (His ideology only has one axiom, which makes it difficult to be correct.) Also, the ideology or set of beliefs is not that of one sole infinity, since MerriamWebster has not defined it as such. "Well, I can't be sure now, because I don't have any proofs in any direction of anything." Pro has misunderstood. He stated "I can't be sure"; this is an assertion that knowledge of the answer to #25 is impossible for him to attain. He cannot know that this knowledge is impossible to attain without proving that it is unprovable (which may sound strange, but can be done). "Here's an idea [for an ideal voting system]: Everybody votes on what they want to be done. Suddenly, everybody has their own alternate dimension in which their vote wins. Therefore, everybody has their own ideal world, from this ideal voting system." Besides the fact that it has been PROVEN that there is no ideal voting system (see link in previous round, or search Arrow's Impossibility Theorem), I will refute this idea: In each dimension, every single person except one does not get what they want. The voting system is therefore far from ideal. Assuming that there are 100 people, each person doesn't get what they want in 99% of dimensions. " 'Create a list of every positive integer.' This is impossible. ;)" No it's not. Infinite list. It doesn't have to be practically possible, only theoretically so. The relevant point here is that Cantor proved it, and it's widely accepted that Cantor proved it. He actually has two proofs, but the second proof is far more complicated. ======== REMINDERS I remind the reader that sources are not important, and the sources vote should be given to whoever you think deserves the arguments vote. I remind the reader that Pro only has to have contradicted himself one time for me to have won. ======== My opponent has made nowhere short of eleven contradictions. Vote CON! 
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
mongeese  MTGandP  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:  0  7 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
mongeese  MTGandP  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:  0  6 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese  MTGandP  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:  6  0 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
mongeese  MTGandP  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:  0  5 
I didn't phrase that very well. I meant to say that he made eleven contradictions.
Mongeese, what's that video for?
Nice. :D