The Instigator
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Brian314
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

If numbers are infinite then, no two things are the same exact size.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Brian314
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,186 times Debate No: 17086
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

GOD-vs-ITSELF

Pro

The only rule is 0 doesn't count as an answer.

But otherwise jump right in, only 2 rounds.
Brian314

Con

I accept this challegne and look forward to an interesting debate.

I would first like to clarify to voters that my opponent, as both Instigator and Pro, has the burden of proof to show us that it is impossible for two objects to be of exactly equal size. Unless my opponent can prove that this is impossible, you should vote Con.

I await my opponent's arguments in the next round, and wish him good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
GOD-vs-ITSELF

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this very important topic.

I gladly except the position to provide for the burden of proof, but I will will have to assume that in claiming that somthing is possible/impossible, we are constrained to what we can prove as possible.If you would like to know the exact model of reference I am relating to, it is to our current extent of scientific knowledge, such mathematical constrains such as the heisenburg uncertainty principle.

If we a considering what ultimately comprises any piece of the physical universe, it comes down to
1 uncertainty
2 disequalibrium

As far as semantics, such as electron orbitals. If you have two electron orbitals, any scientist would have to admit that the measurement is close enough to have the exact characteristic for model classification. It is not understood that there may be a relation to an extremely small scale disequalibrium

my proof is we are yet to find that two quarks are the exact same size, so therefore we have to say there is only probability. So we will consider that certain things can be said to act in a similar way when within a certain range. If you create a perameter saying that two things are anything other than one self, then we are taking such to be a model other than infinity. Where as the only two things that can be alike are infinity, that is why I took out the use of 0 because it is used to represent infinity. If every thing is comprised of the same thing, Energy, then the only way to discern a one thing from another quanity of fluctuation.

I would hope
that voters as well as my opponent will be able to see the sheer magnitude of saying that two physical
entities can be observed for an infinite strand of digits without and form of inequality.

If this
argument gets into semantics let me retract all above and say I win because you can never
conceive a closed infinity, or else your missing what infinite is, never ending.
Brian314

Con

My opponent uses "our current extent of scientific knowledge" to show that due to uncertainty and disequilibrium, no two things are of the exact same size.

His "proof" of this is that we have "yet to find that two quarks are the exact same size." This is not true. Take, for example, Dalton's Atomic Theory[1][2], still currently accepted as modern scientific knowledge. It clearly states that all atoms of the same element are identical and have the same mass. Therefore, two of the same atom (for example, two hydrogen atoms, two lithium atoms, etc.) will be of the exact same size.

My opponent has give no reason to believe that identical atomic and subatomic particles cannot possible be of the same size, and only states that "there may[not absolutely] be a relation to an extremely small scale disequilibrium".

As my opponent has not satisfied his burden of proof and I have shown that there exist two objects that are of identical size, I strongly urge you to vote Con.

[1]http://dl.clackamas.edu...'s.htm
[2] http://www.iun.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
what cliff said.

I almost started arguing in the comments... good thing I caught myself.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Unless you want this to get semantical then you might want to define what you mean by things. For example are you talking about electron orbitals?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
GOD-vs-ITSELFBrian314Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough call but Con made a good counter argument that negates the resolution. Pro hurt himself by not allowing a chance to refute Con's case, and by ultimately relying on the voters to decide on their own that they agree with his resolution instead of expanding on his case.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GOD-vs-ITSELFBrian314Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: One of Con's sources does not work due to a format error,but Pro does not source at all. Con leaps from mass to size being the same which is not supported (all hydrogen atoms are not the same size as the orbital configurations can be different). Pro lays out a foundation which is solid, but it is not fully developed and requires a fair amount of existing knowledge on the reader. 3:2 for Pro but I can see how votes could go the other way.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
GOD-vs-ITSELFBrian314Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to argue and unwinable case... just because there is an infinite number of numbers (and if I'm reading you correctly and that means that any given object when measured results in a measurement with an infinite decimal) does not mean that theoretically it is impossible for two things to have the same infinite decimal. Just because we cannot measure it, or know it, does not mean it is impossible. You failed to fulfill burden of proof.