If you travel from point A to point B by only taking half steps, then point B doesnt really exist.
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:  4/3/2013  Category:  Miscellaneous  
Updated:  3 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  492 times  Debate No:  32056 
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)
If you travel from point A to point B by only taking half steps, then point B doesn't really exist.
Allow me to elaborate. Lets say I'm at point A, which is 3 feet away from point B, then if I have the ability to cut my distance in half every time I take a step, my destination does not exist because I will never reach my destination. I came across this idea while studying algebra. Here, we where graphing rational functions and we learned about holes and asymptotes. The reasoning behind my logic is that you can infinitely approach a hole, yet never reach the number exactly before it because a hole is a number that does not exist. The same with an asymptote:you can infinitely approach the x or y asymptote but you will never reach the number before it because the asymptote cannot be touched.
I accept the challenge. Thanks to pilover for this debate. Assuming we are dealing with reality, that is to say we are talking about two physical points in the observable universe, your argument is a losing proposition from the beginning. Allow me to briefly explain. Point B exists in reality, regardless if you reach the destination or not. No matter what mathematical formula you may use, or if you never reach the destination, it does not negate the fact that point B does in fact exist. 

Yes, in reality if I have a known set destination, I agree it does in fact exist. And yes, my apologies, I was a little vague on my opening statement. I am traveling through any space, where my next step is half of my previous step, and I cannot define my destination as a set position. My destination is a theoretical point, whereas I can only define it by the distance I travel.
This concept is more along the lines of "if I am not looking at it, is it still there?" Whereas I am essentially asking: If I am not there yet, is it really there? Limited to my perception, I cannot prove my destination exists. But my logic says it doesn't exist because I am infinitely moving closer and closer to my destination without touching it. I absolutely cannot reach it, therefore if I can't reach it, how do I know it exists?
I understand the point you're making. However, the argument you originally made was that if point A was 3 feet from point B, and you halved each step you took towards point B,then point B does not exist, because you would never reach it. That is the premise of your original argument. I have proven that false, by showing that the distance between two points does not have any bearing on the reality of either. I assume you mistakenly put forth an argument that you weren't trying to argue for. In any event, as I have accepted the debate on your original premise, I believe I have successfully defeated your argument. 

pilover forfeited this round.
I believe I have won this debate by showing my opponents position to be false. A big thanks you to my opponent and to the voters of this debate. 
Post a Comment
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by phantom 3 years ago
What do you mean by half steps?
Report this Comment
No votes have been placed for this debate.