The Instigator
TheHost
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Impossibility exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
BlackVoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,659 times Debate No: 17649
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

TheHost

Pro

In this debate I will be arguing that impossibility exists, not just extreme improbability. I will stop now, lest I say my entire argument, I hope, as my first real chance at a debate here, I can make some good points. Thank you.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to TheHost for an interesting topic. I'll assume the first round is just for acceptance and await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheHost

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting, and I hope I can make this debate as interesting as possible.

I present a simple logic puzzle to help me prove my point.

Imagine two non-coexisting realities. Lets call one Alpha and the other one Beta.

In Alpha anything is possible, (Albeit some being improbable, all actions are possible.) in Beta, there is at least one known or unknown impossibility. Now, in a reality where all possibilities are possible, wouldn't one possibility be that something could be impossible? Therefore, that reality cannot exist, because nothing can exist that makes its existence impossible. So if an existence where impossibility must exist is the only possible existence, that proves that there must be something that is impossible.

Can't wait to hear an opposing side.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to Pro for his argument. I'll refute it and then explain why nothing is impossible.

His point is basically, in a world where anything is possible, it is possible for something to be impossible. This is a paradox; so we must assume that a world where anything is possible cannot exist.


Rebuttal

In a world where anything is possible, there would be no such thing as an Impossibility in the first place. Impossibilities cannot exist in a world where anything is possible. Therefore, saying that it would be "possible for something to be impossible" is not a valid conjecture because impossibilities do not exist in the world he has formulated. His argument about a "possible impossibility" is not a contradiction that prevents Alpha from existing because impossibilities don't actually exist.


Con case:


1. Technology's power is limitless; at some point we may be able to fly, travel to different dimensions, defy the laws of physics, or meet God using advanced futuristic tech. Things that our ancestors once thought could never happen have been made true through modern advancements. As technology continues to progress, more previously "impossible" feats will also beome possible, perhaps to the point where we can do anything.

2. Impossibilities are subjective. I may think its impossible for bees to fly given their weight being disproportionately large compared to their wings. But a biologist who knows that bees flap their wings fast enough to fly may disagree. There's really no way to objectively determine that something is impossible because there will always be those who think it isn't.


I thank Pro for his interesting argument and await his response.
Debate Round No. 2
TheHost

Pro

Rebuttal:
While I agree about the fact that Alpha cannot exist due to its paradoxical nature, I believe by bringing that up you may have given me the debate. Because you stated it could not exist that means Alphas existence is an impossibility. We will never be able to create a world where absolutely everything is possible. As long as the one impossibility of Alpha exists, impossibility will exist.
Pro case: With the evidence I have given, I believe that I have proved thoroughly that my case is correct. All of my arguments are extended for the next round.
BlackVoid

Con

Pro has apparently misinterpreted my second paragraph. My sentences before the rebuttal were explaining his argument, not agreeing with it. When I said "this is a paradox", that was me explaining the argument he has made. This should have been obvious because I didn't label my rebuttal until after that summary.

He never answered my rebuttal; impossibilities do not exist in world Alpha. This is what his whole argument is about, so his case falls.

He's dropped the entire Con case. Technology allows us to do anything, and nothing can be proven impossible because the idea of it is subjective. Based off the technology argument alone, voters can go Con because that it itself affirmed that anything is possible.
Debate Round No. 3
TheHost

Pro

I will make it short and sweet. Since impossibility is a possibility if everything is possible, alpha cannot exist. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Alpha to exist, no matter what TECHNOLOGY we have, we could never create an existence where everything is possible.
BlackVoid

Con

My opponent has just repeated his argument from round 2. I've already refuted it and my response is unanswered throughout the debate round. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
Okay, a lot of people are going to disagree with how I voted, and 'm okay with that. Let me make it clear that I judge rounds based on "the flow," or the arguments as made by the debaters. If I know an argument is wrong but it goes unanswered within the round, I assume it is true when casting my ballot. Don't expect me to intervene in the slightest to make an argument for you that you could have made yourself. That being said...

RFD: The con refute world Alpha. I'm not going to go into the intricacies of that part of the debate because it is irrelevant due to the fact that he never refutes world Beta. Even though the extension of Pro's case is weak in round 2, I accept an extension for world Beta, if nothing else, because it is never responded to. The existence of Beta affirms by definition.

Note: Before I am flamed for voting on Beta while there is no warrant for it's existence, Con failed to point that out. As I said above, dropped arguments are true in my mind as a judge.
Posted by TheHost 5 years ago
TheHost
@RaeTulo wjmelements comment is just a simplified version of my entire argument
Posted by RaeTulo 5 years ago
RaeTulo
wjmelements, that is the greatest thing I have ever read.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
Impossibility exists. To deny this implies the impossibility of impossibility, which is impossible.
Posted by TheHost 5 years ago
TheHost
since the debate has already been accepted, i will show what i mean in my arguments.
Posted by modivarch 5 years ago
modivarch
Let me clarify MY comment a bit. By impossibility I understand that to mean anything that implies a contradiction. Usually, that is understood to be the criteria by which something is considered impossible.

By existence I assumed spatio-temporal points in my first suggestion, but I'm willing to accept another if you'd like to offer one.
Posted by modivarch 5 years ago
modivarch
Do you mean that there is a case of p and not-p which has a spatio-temporal existence within the same world/universe? (That is, if we assume the physical world/universe does exist.) Or do you mean that there are certain statements that "exist" (whatever that means) which express impossibility? Or...

Some clarification would help.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
TheHostBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments section.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
TheHostBlackVoidTied
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: Still trying to figure this one out, but Con clearly made a stronger argument. Pro just repeats himself, and does not address Cons rebuttals.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
TheHostBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was frustrating because Con is so wrong, but Pro only pushed one definitional argument. If Pro could have only stepped outside of that and offered factual claims about the nature and limits of science this could have been easily won. I don't feel Pro quite fulfilled his simple BoP, and I would certainly take up a rematch with Con arguing the Pro side if he is interested.