It is physically possible to do nothing.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
Voting: 7 days
Arguments: 3 days
Characters per Argument: 8,000
All votes must have comments, no votebombing, otherwise someone must counter them.
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.
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.
Luggs forfeited this round.
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.
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.
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 forfeited this round.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.