The Instigator
drumbum565
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
SportsGuru
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Resolved: The phrase "anything is possible" is false.

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  
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: 1/26/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,582 times Debate No: 2204
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (16)

 

drumbum565

Pro

This phrase is a paradox onto itself. This statement correlates saying that nothing is impossible, that anything can be done. Well if ANYTHING is possible, then impossibility is possible, and if impossibility is possible then it could be impossible to do something else.

QED the statement "Anything is possible" proves itself false.
SportsGuru

Con

You proved yourself wrong in your own argument by typing the word "anything". The title states that the phrase "Anything is possible is false". If it is false, it is impossible for the word "anything" to exist. As both the title, your argument, and my argument use the word anything, common sense dictates that it is at least possible "anything" exits.

Respected sources have entries for anything including Dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

and Merriam Webster's Dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com...

I now stand for cross examination :)
Debate Round No. 1
drumbum565

Pro

You could not be more wrong in order for a statement to be false the components must exist. False is defined as not true by Merriam webster's dictionary is . Truth is defined as the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality by Merriam webster's as well. So as you can see statement isn't in accordance with reality not the parts.

You must look at this logically if anything is possible then impossibility is possible. That is a fact. and if Impossibility is possible then something could be impossible, and since the statement says anything is possible, the fact that some things are impossible makes it false.
SportsGuru

Con

1. My round 1 argument has a semantic split from what you are deducing. Your first argument was that the phrase's non-literal meaning is false. In my first argument, I stated that the phrase's literal meaning (aka the word "anything" itself is possible) is not false. As you did not successfully refute my argument, I extend it.

2. "You must look at this logically if anything is possible then impossibility is possible. That is a fact. and if Impossibility is possible then something could be impossible, and since the statement says anything is possible, the fact that some things are impossible makes it false."

You state that it is fact that some things are impossible, but you offer no proof showing that some things are impossible. The very definition of possible is that it MAY happen; that an event has POTENTIAL (http://www.m-w.com...). Thus, though it is possible some things may be impossible, there is no proof in this debate that some things are definitely impossible.

3. According to your logic, couldn't Impossibility be impossible making anything possible and the phrase "anything is possible" true?
Debate Round No. 2
drumbum565

Pro

1. your i apologize for not understanding your point at the beginning, however this resolution does not say the word anything, or imply by any means that it is saying the word isn't possible.

2.The very fact that impossibility is possible makes the statement false, you do not need firm evidence of something being impossible because the phrase provides that, the meer possibility of something being impossible proves it false,

And as far as your statement "impossibility is impossible" this to is a paradox if impossibility is impossible then the fact that it is impossible proves the statement false there are some things that are impossible.
SportsGuru

Con

1. Sorry, I probably could of made it clearer. However, the topic states that the phrase "anything is possible" is false. It does not specify how the topic should be debated. The instigator has ample space and unlimited time in the first argument to place any specific limits other than the resolution on the debate. As you did not ban debate over the literal meaning of the phrase, any opponent must assume that the literal meaning is open to debate. Anything that the instigator assumes everyone else will know assumes at their own risk. I extend my 1st argument unopposed. Voters should vote for con on this alone as con has proved the phrase not false and pro has not opposed and therefore agreed with it and conceded.

2. As pro/affirmative, you have the burden of proof and I as con/negative have the burden of refutation. In this debate, that means you must prove the phrase "anything is false" to win and I must successfully refute your arguments to win. I successfully refuted your argument by showing that you had no firm evidence that the statement was false and you replied stating that you did not need evidence rather that the mere possibility of it being false is enough to back up your case. However, dictionary.com defines the proof you are burdened with as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true". (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Thus you cannot have proof without evidence. Since you have no firm evidence, you have no proof and do not fill the burden you need to fill to win.

Why the voters should vote con:
1.Con proved aforementioned phrase is true (and as Pro defined not false) in the literal sense and Pro has conceded this.
2.Con fulfilled burden of refutation needed to win and successfully refuted Pro's arguments.
3.Pro does not have evidence for his arguments therefore does not have proof that the phrase is false therefore Pro does not fill his burden of proof and it is almost like Pro does not have any arguments at all.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Daggyshog 3 years ago
Daggyshog
The "anything is/isn't possible" argument has been debated many times with the arguments stated here being pretty much the same in every debate I have observed. I think what's important to remember is those positions are only valid when any given concept or idea is being discussed in the theoretical sense. Yes, of course, anything is theoretically possible. But stating that something in the real world is true simply because it is theoretically possible is simply not acceptable, even though I have heard any number of people try to make that argument. In the real world, we decide if something is possible or not possible by scientific means, most of the time, by legal process at other times, and sometimes both. In both of those processes we live by the rule of "burden of truth". This essential component forces us to provide reasonable evidence to prove our point. Without evidence, the remote theoretical possibility of something, by itself, means nothing. Otherwise, the most ridiculous claims could be accepted as fact simply because "anything is possible." In reality, even the theoretical argument is invalid, in my opinion. What really happens with these paradox arguments is the opposing views cancel each other out. That is the nature of a paradox. "Could god create a rock that could not be thrown and then throw it?" You folks can argue and spin this theoretical stuff all day long, I live in the real world where, thankfully, the burden of proof rules the day.
Posted by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
I'm on a Boat....like Kevin Garrnet ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!!
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Concepts are things too.

I would have defined "impossibility" as a negative state, that would mean it can't be categorized as a "thing".

Darkness, for example, is not a thing, because it is merely the state where light is absent.

Thus, impossibility is not a thing and need apply to the rule "anything is possible".
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
Or you could say that impossibility is not a thing, it's just a concept.
Posted by drumbum565 9 years ago
drumbum565
You could not be more wrong in order for a statement to be false the components must exist. False is defined as not true by Merriam webster's dictionary is . Truth is defined as the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality by Merriam webster's as well. So as you can see statement isn't in accordance with reality not the parts.

You must look at this logically if anything is possible then impossibility is possible. That is a fact. and if Impossibility is possible then something could be impossible, and since the statement says anything is possible, the fact that some things are impossible makes it false.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by Gao 9 years ago
Gao
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
drumbum565SportsGuruTied
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