The Instigator
Luggs
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

It is physically possible to do nothing.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Luggs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,173 times Debate No: 27010
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Luggs

Con

No specific rules, other than no plaigarizing, 1st round is acceptance and 5th round is closing statements, BoP is on both of us. My job is to prove Pro's claims false, as well as proving my own claims correct. By breaking these rules, you forfeit all 7 points.

When saying "doing nothing", I am referring to the literal definition of the words, meaning not taking part in any actions.I would like to thanks whoever accepts this debate.

My position is that it is physically impossible to literally do nothing.

-=Debate Parameters=-
Rounds: 5
Voting: 7 days
Arguments: 3 days
Characters per Argument: 8,000
All votes must have comments, no votebombing, otherwise someone must counter them.
RationalMadman

Pro

I shall define 'to do nothing' in a formal manner for sake of no ambiguity.

To do nothing is to carry out no physical action for at least an instantaneous moment of time.

Despite being mentally impossible to do nothing since the mind is in itself doing something by existing it is physically possible to do nothing.

Physical: relating to the body as opposed to the mind.[1]

The body can carry out no action for an instant of time by remaining perfectly still. A common method would be by anaesthesia, another is when it is laying very still and for an instant in time carries out no action whatsoever. Additionally, all dead bodies physically do nothing, but I would assume my opponent is referring to living beings only.

When one undergoes a heart attack, for an instant on the hospital bed they can often lay there with no pulse whatsoever and until one using electric pads to wake them, they are essentially doing nothing, not beating the heart, not breathing for that instant in time.

In conclusion, although rare, there are some states in which a physical entity can be in which it does nothing.

Sources:
[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Luggs

Con

Luggs forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Pro

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Luggs

Con

Oops, missed the deadline for the previous round, but it doesn't matter much. I take it you didn't read the rules? You gave arguments in the 1st round, when I said that R1 was for acceptance, and what was the punishment for breaking a rule? Simple. A seven-point forfeit. So yeah, I get those.

So, to my arguments.

Pro said: The body can carry out no action for an instant of time by remaining perfectly still. A common method would be by anaesthesia, another is when it is laying very still and for an instant in time carries out no action whatsoever. Additionally, all dead bodies physically do nothing, but I would assume my opponent is referring to living beings only.

My rebuttal: remaining still? So by standing? In that case, the body is carrying out the action of standing. If you taking about sitting, then the same applies for sitting. Now, for anaesthesia. After someone is injected with it, your body will most likely be lying down, another action. This applies for dead people and people undergoing heart attacks as well, as you do not need consciousness for your body to carry out these actions, after all, the definition of "physical" that you gave us is "relating to the body as opposed to the mind".

I apologize for forfeiting R2, but I have been distracted. Anyways, I bring the arguments to Pro.
RationalMadman

Pro

I broke a (very minor) rule you forfeited a round. Let's say fair play okay? Truce?

Standing, sitting and laying are all not doing nothing. I agree. However, Anaesthesia makes one completely unconscious and totally incapable of any movement. They are not laying on the hospital bed but are limp and immobile And their immobility leads them to fall to whatever ground there is to rest on, in this case the bed. The person, when under anaesthesia is in fact doing nothing. They are not laying on a bed, the be is actually holding them. They are not in control of a single muscle in the body at all and couldn't stop laying if they wanted to.

Look at Stephen hawking. if we gave him anaesthesia and left him in his wheelchair he wouldn't be laying, he's just sit there. when under anesthesia they way in which your body is positioned is merely whatever is possible to do with 0% activity, you are completely and utterly limp and immobile, whatever you collide with, you do nothing to stop, whether that's a bed or a wheelchair.

"This applies for dead people" No it doesn't, a dead person is literally doing nothing.

Over to you con.
Debate Round No. 3
Luggs

Con

Even though I did forfeit a round, it was not against the specified rules, and I still said that violation of any of the rules results in a 7-point forfeit.

Now, back the the argument.

You bring back the argument on anaesthesia. Must I remind you that the topic pertains to whether it is physically possible, meaning, as you suggested, pertaining to the body, not the mind? If one is unconsious is irrelevant when the mind is irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe I should rephrase one of my statements: under anaestheia, the body is not laying on the bed, but rather, it is resting on the bed.

Pro said: Look at Stephen hawking. if we gave him anaesthesia and left him in his wheelchair he wouldn't be laying, Look at Stephen hawking. if we gave him anaesthesia and left him in his wheelchair he wouldn't be laying, he's just sit there. when under anesthesia they way in which your body is positioned is merely whatever is possible to do with 0% activity, you are completely and utterly limp and immobile, whatever you collide with, you do nothing to stop, whether that's a bed or a wheelchair.

Now, let me emphasize on the ending of your second sentence: "he's just sit there". Exactly. Your wording is proving me right. We would be sitting, regardless of whether he is doing it counsciously or not. Now, I may be pulling a cheap shot over here right now, but would still be committing the action of existing, which is also independent on whether somebody is conscious.

Now, you may be thinking "well, what if the body stopped existing?" In that case, I would say that there would be no subject. What I mean is this: Let's say a man named John's body was burned. Someone could say that John is doing nothing, but in reality, there is no John at all now.

Pro also said: "This applies for dead people" No it doesn't, a dead person is literally doing nothing. I have two things to say to this. Number one: I just refuted that in my previous statements, and number two: you have no basis to state this on, so I have the right to dismiss this statement.

Back to you, Pro.
RationalMadman

Pro

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Luggs

Con

Well, time for our closing. I will remind our audience that Pro forfeited 7 points to me, so if Pro fails to give me those points, someone who is voting should give a 7-point vote towards me, though only one voter should do such.

I would like to thanks Pro for debating with me, and I hope to have the opportunity to debate with him again. I would like to urge the voters to vote for who they believe deserved the victory under the voting criteria given at the top of the page.

Thanks, and back to Pro.
RationalMadman

Pro

I destroyed your entire argument and you had no reply.

You forfeited round 2 thus you forfeited all 7 points first.

Thank you vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
Also, you never rebutted my Round 4 argument. Plus, forfeiting is not against the rules. EitherPro must hand over the seven points, or a voter must do it for him.
Posted by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
The 7 points were forfeited when Pro made an argument in Round 1.
Posted by fuckinghostile 4 years ago
fuckinghostile
When you have a heart attack and your heart and lungs stop working you are officially dead. Then the brain stop shortly after. It is absolutely impossible to do nothing. No matter what you say, I've thought of this as a child even for hours on end lol. If you're dead, you're laying in a coffin, if you get cremated you are doing nothing right? Idk, this debate is silly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
LuggsRationalMadmanTied
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: First, and most importantly, pro broke a rule. One of con's rules, "1st round is acceptance" was broken by pro, and, con said, "By breaking [any] these rules, you forfeit all 7 points." Therefore, pro forfeited the debate by presenting arguments in the first round. But, the vote goes beyond that. Even though con forfeited, pro would get the conduct point anyway because one, con apologized (pro didn't), and two, con did not have the obligation to respond, pro did. Even further, con presented better arguments because con proved that one is always doing something.