The Instigator
l2jperry
Pro (for)
Winning
70 Points
The Contender
gonovice
Con (against)
Losing
65 Points

It is impossible for two humans to physically touch eachother.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,311 times Debate No: 1209
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (41)

 

l2jperry

Pro

It is impossible for two humans to physically touch eachother.

Gimme your best shot! I'll make my case in the second round.
gonovice

Con

Are you joking me right now? I don't quite understand why you started this debate. but it looked really interesting.

so yea, it is possible. people do it all the time. you should know that but oh well.

i look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
l2jperry

Pro

My case is simply this, humans are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Electrons are on the outer age of each atom. Since electrons all have negative charges they repel one another. Therefore, it only makes sence that when two people are "touching" they are actually not because their electrons are repelling one another.
gonovice

Con

while that makes since scientifically, it doesn't in normal human language.

the atoms thing makes since. but if that's true then how can you feel someone else. if you touch someones arm you feel them. if we were repelling then we wouldn't feel the other person.
Debate Round No. 2
l2jperry

Pro

The debate was not if you could feel someone, but if you could physically touch someone.

- Yes I agree that you can feel someone, however I think that the definition of touch is inconceivable. It's at least something to think about. Perhaps our knowledge of atoms is flawed, or perhaps there are other particles even smaller then the electron that allows us to come into contact. But with the basic agreement with scientists and people in today's world, it should be impossible for two humans to PHYSICALLY touch one another.
gonovice

Con

to put the hand, finger, etc., on or into contact with (something) to feel it:

that is the definition of touch. To touch something and feel it. when you touch something then you feel it. atoms or not, if you touch something you do feel it.

phys�i�cal
tending to touch, hug, pat, etc.; physically demonstrative:

so the definition of physical is touching as well.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
wow pro is winning....XD
Posted by steelman 8 years ago
steelman
This may be wrong, but even though two like-sides of a magnet repell eachother, if you push hard enough, you can make them toutch. Is it possible that, enven though there is some repulsion, the miniscule ammount that it is dosnt affect us and we are able to force it together.
Posted by likwyd 8 years ago
likwyd
So all this argument tells us is that our bodies are completely contradicting themselves. On one side, our atoms say we repel, but on the other side, our senses tell us we connect. We must all be hypocrites on the inside. How does this even make sense?
I actually DO understand the concept behind the theory but did someone really think of this for any specific reason?, or just to throw a curve in the understanding of the human body? And if it is worth this much debate and attention why has this not been taught from the early ages of physics, only to now confuse the seniors of this earth when children come home from school with this theory to tell only to be made fun of? I am not saying the theory is wrong, because it is what it is..a theory. But damn, is it even necessary?
Posted by liberal_at_heart 9 years ago
liberal_at_heart
the atomic repel can be described in human lingo as being physicals attracted to some one lol because when we move toward some one we assume we have a connection and i all reality we feel the repelling of or anatomic structure
its neat we realy do make chemistry with people lol !!!
Posted by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
ok i am in l2jperrys science class, and with all that he is saying is that there is no physical contact, all that you feel when you touch is the repulsion of electrons. there will always be space between things that "Touch"
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
hey guys I'm a girl, look at my profile.
Posted by l2jperry 9 years ago
l2jperry
Well, it certainly is not forcing. I didn't put a gun to his head and tell him to accept the debate.
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
that is a dirty trick
forcing your opponent to reveal his arguments before you.
Posted by l2jperry 9 years ago
l2jperry
Thanks for the feedback Darth.

I'll do that from now on.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
l2jperry, I do see your point on the atomic level. But I don't think its right to start your point in the next section. People should know what they are in for. This debate could be much longer and more thoroughly touched upon if someone with an actual prior knowledge knew what they where debating against.
41 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by WhiteWolf 4 years ago
WhiteWolf
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The last argument solidified it. I thought pro had it, but somehow con pulled through. Perry gets grammar though.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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: Wow, I remember my chemistry teacher saying the same thing now that Pro brings it up, people cannot actually touch, only atoms.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
l2jperrygonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by questionmark 7 years ago
questionmark
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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 
Vote Placed by steelman 8 years ago
steelman
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
l2jperrygonoviceTied
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:30