The Instigator
Crescendo
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
invisibledeity
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is A Two Dimensional Object Possible?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Crescendo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 52466
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Crescendo

Con

My opponent may post during the first round, burden of proof is shared.
invisibledeity

Pro

DUH!! Want to see a two dimensional object? print up this argument on your printer!!
Debate Round No. 1
Crescendo

Con

Before we begin, let us define 2-D and 3-D.

Definition of 2-Dimensional:
http://www.mathsisfun.com...

Definition of 3-Dimensional:
http://www.mathsisfun.com...

A 2-D object is missing a dimension, whether it be length, width, or height.
Now what happens if a 3-D object has a dimension lessened? Well, that object will get thinner in a certain direction. If that dimension were to shrink completely, that object would become thinner and thinner and then it would disappear. Note that according to the definition of 3-D provided it said that all real-world objects are 3-D.

My opponent references to a thin sheet of printed paper. But what my opponent does not see is that this piece of paper has all three dimensions intact. That other dimension is simply very thin.
Even an object on a computer screen is actually 3-D, as it is composed out of electricity and light, which contains all three dimensions, albeit on a VERY, VERY small scale.

Unless my opponent brings forth an utterly brilliant counter-argument proving that 2-D objects do in fact exist, then there is no point in debating this.

More Suggested Reading:
https://answers.yahoo.com...
invisibledeity

Pro

BURP.

I just ATE my opponent's arguments. LOLOL

Now let me show you what's left of them!!!!

There is absolutely NOTHING impossible with there being a 2dimensional object!!! Do they violate any LAWS OF LOGIC?? NO!!!

So they are POSSIBLe. ALL I need to show is that they COULD EXIST!!!! MY OPPONENT needs to show that they CANNOT exist. PERIOD.

Ever heard of modal logic??!? If something is NOT impossible, then it exists in SOME possiblr world. This means its POSSIBLE.

AND THERES IS NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE ABOUT 2D OBJECTS!!! SO WE SHOULD THINK THEYA RE AT LEAST POSSIBLE!!!

Unless my clown LOSER opponent can prtove otherwise!!! hahahahaha!
Debate Round No. 2
Crescendo

Con

"There is absolutely NOTHING impossible with there being a 2dimensional object!!! Do they violate any LAWS OF LOGIC?? NO!!!"

Instead of doing this, please provide a rational and logical rebuttal to my contention.

"So they are POSSIBLe. ALL I need to show is that they COULD EXIST!!!! MY OPPONENT needs to show that they CANNOT exist. PERIOD."
I suppose so. Of course, my opponent needs to keep in mind that:
A. Burden of Proof is shared
B. I can still prove that whatever 2-D object he mentions is actually a 3-D object

"Ever heard of modal logic??!? If something is NOT impossible, then it exists in SOME possiblr world. This means its POSSIBLE."

For this argument to be valid, my opponent must prove:
A. That the very laws of the Universe are different in other universes.
B. That the Multiverse Theory is true.

"AND THERES IS NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE ABOUT 2D OBJECTS!!! SO WE SHOULD THINK THEYA RE AT LEAST POSSIBLE!!!"

Instead of making claims like this, please provide an adequate rebuttal to my claims.

"Unless my clown LOSER opponent can prtove otherwise!!! hahahahaha!"

Despite what my opponent may say, I suspect strongly that his purpose here (pertaining to this debate) is to troll.
invisibledeity

Pro

invisibledeity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
He has a REALLY nice fedora.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
Berend
Is there something about ID I am unaware of?
Posted by queenofmayhem 2 years ago
queenofmayhem
I think I lost brain cells, thanks pro.

Con, I offer you my utmost sympathy.
Posted by invisibledeity 2 years ago
invisibledeity
RIGHT. Because I am OBLITERATING him!!! LOLOL
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Bubba, just challenge Berend to this debate once this one is over. You'll get nowhere with ID.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
Berend
Damn beat me too it.
Posted by invisibledeity 2 years ago
invisibledeity
LOL! you know you will lose!
Posted by Crescendo 2 years ago
Crescendo
Aw crap, not this guy...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by queenofmayhem 2 years ago
queenofmayhem
CrescendoinvisibledeityTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Though Con has easily won, a 2D is in fact possible, just not in our dimension. Since they never specified this in the debate, I must go with Pro. However, conduct and spelling go to Con due to Pro's forfeit and lack of intelligent "conversation". Pro made no relevant arguments and supplied no sources to back their claims up. Congrats Con, 7 points.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 2 years ago
Brendan21
CrescendoinvisibledeityTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Shame, could be an interesting debate. I believe pro is right about us being unable to rule out the possibility, therefore I find it extremely likely for it to exist somewhere in space.