All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

# it is possible to travel a finite distance for an infinite amount of time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Kahvan
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 1/5/2010 Category: Science Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 3,199 times Debate No: 10695
Debate Rounds (3)

26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by faithinchaos21 6 years ago
I just wanted to point out that if his opponent is making the case that infinity does indeed exist "Numbers cannot be counted", then that would mean an object could travel to another in an infinite amount of time. Logically, if infinity exists, anything at all could happen at any time infinitely. An infinite number of parallel universes could exist simply because infinity exists. If that's true, then there could be one instance of an object moving forever towards another object with nothing in space at all. However, to make the case infinity does not exist, there can never be a universe that has nothing at all, a universe that does not exist. There cannot be 0, because 0 is nothing. Therefore, an object could not travel towards another infinitely.
Posted by Frodobaggins 8 years ago
"Con introduced the condition that no external forces could be applied."
I don't remember introducing that condition. My argument that external forces always are applied.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago

"lets say the atom mentioned in my scenario before is so much in the void of space that you cant even see any light. Being this far away the atom would not have to worry about friction or gravity."
-If there is no friction, the atom cannot change speeds.

"The atom is moving with momentum. The momentum it has in the viod of space would be enough to propel it since it would not encounter friction because it would have nothing with which to have friction"
-If there is no force to act upon the atom, it's rate of speed would be constant. It could never, then, halve the rate of travel in order to halve the distance traveled.

"The atom starts at point A and is headed to point be a a rate of travel that is always half the distance it needs to reach point B. In this scenario the atom will for an infinite amount of time be traveling towards point B. In terms of writing mathmatically, to determine this distance it is traveling you just put 1/2 over 2, over 2, over 2, over 2."
-This is also contradictory because the atom only has one destination. At what point do you say "ok, the atom traveled this distance, and at the next point it will travel half that distance". If there is only point A and point B, it would have reached it's destination at the first measurement of distance traveled.

Pro contradicts himself over and over again.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Frodo, My example was only to show that a debate stands for evaluation whether or not one sid concedes or not. You said my example didn't apply because Con's arguments persuasive independent of the concession. That agrees with my point that the concession is not determinative.

In this debate, Con introduced the condition that no external forces could be applied. If that is accepted then the object, per Newton, cannot change velocity so Con wins. Pro should have jumped up and down with objections to adding that condition, but he pretty much let it slide. Had Pro vigorously objected, there would be no question of Pro winning, as nature is full of things that occur asymptotically. So the question in deciding the debate was whether Pro objected enough to Con's extra assumptions. I think so, but it was close.
Posted by Frodobaggins 8 years ago
Imagine a debate:
Pro: Lawn fairies exist.
Con: No they don't. There is no physical basis or documentary evidence for it.
Pro: My Uncle Fred sees them all the time.
Con: I concede.

That example is flawed as Con's (represents pro in example) arguments were nothing as you were stating but were completely logical.
Posted by Frodobaggins 8 years ago
@Roy, you are incorrectly judging the debate by using your bias.

Con ignored Pro's mathematical argument because the resolution wasn't that it was mathematically possible but possible in reality which Con did a fair job of proving that it isn't.

Pro even conceded, to vote Pro is ridiculous.
Posted by Kahvan 8 years ago
Of course if if I was still able to convince him even if I was not convinced then Roy would still be in the right.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Roy, I don't agree. When judging a debate a judge must weigh whether or not he is convinced, but also must take into consideration whether or not one debater was able to manipulate the other. In the example you gave, Pro convinced Con that he was right. That is the ultimate win in a debate- make the other person give up. I understand Kahvan's argument that he "can" win some points, but he definitely does not get the "arguments" points if he concedes. You can not have been "convincing" if you concede. If he convinced you, but concedes the debate, there is the before/after vote. This happens all the time where someone argues a point I agree with, but presents very weak arguments- especially if I know of a strong argument. But you are voting based on your own understanding, and not that of Pro. You say he "incorrectly conceded", but that is not your choice to make.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
My judgment is that he incorrectly conceded. The arguments presented were convincing enough, even though Pro himself could not see it. In other words, even though Pro may have been convinced, I was not. I think Pro's mistake was accepting too many of Con's long list of assumptions.

Imagine a debate:
Pro: Lawn fairies exist.
Con: No they don't. There is no physical basis or documentary evidence for it.
Pro: My Uncle Fred sees them all the time.
Con: I concede.

Who wins this hypothetical exchange? Con wins for giving the correct argument even though erroneously conceding.

I admit this a fine point of debate theory, but it does happen.
Posted by Kahvan 8 years ago
I conceded that I could not prove my main point. But based on the voting system a small chance remains that I may win. (emphasis on small)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.