The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

minus is impossible.. destruction

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 442 times Debate No: 93059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)






I'll try my best to interpret what you are trying to say. I assume you mean subtraction is impossible because matter/energy can not be destroyed. In that case I can expand your argument to include addition is not possible because matter/energy can also not be created.

I don't think the ideas of subtraction and addition are constrained to the "physical" world like you are putting it. "Minus" is possible in an even broader sense. For example, considering a closed system, quantities belonging to sets can be subtracted or added to those sets, either adding or subtracting quantities from other sets within the same closed system.

If I have a group of 5 apples and a group of 3 oranges sitting in front of me (no matter their arrangements) I can take 2 apples from the set of 5 and add them to the set of oranges.
Debate Round No. 1



even if in a closed system electricity behave in the calculated sequences what is actually going on is its changing position.. its not destroyed

hm, well i can minus in my mind, and create.. should have been more specifik perhaps :)

you can take 2 apples from 5 and put them to the oranges but they dont count as oranges


Now I'm even more confused haha.

In a closed system electricity (or "electrical energy") changes form, from electric charge to motion or heat or light. The same quantity of "stuff" is still contained in the system, but the energy of the battery has definitely been reduced. Going back to the Apple/Orange annalogy, the fully charged battery is like 5 apples, the ambient temperature is like 3 oranges. 2 of the apples change form, into 1 orange. Now the system contains 3 apples and 4 oranges without breaking any conservation laws. Comparing the first and last states: 5 apples -> 3 apples, subtraction has occured and 2 apples were destroyed in the process.
Debate Round No. 2


but the energy going to a light bulb dosnt become or is nothing, becasue it is making the light bulb shine.. the light bulb shining is energy going into the atmosphere or whatver.. but if you put to much energy on positive and negative charge to a piece of metal it will melt the metal.. you are right electricity becomes heat, in that case.. and that is transformation not destruction

sure, but im talking about the full electrical circuit for it to exist.. there has to be positive and negative in a circuit for them to make a light bulb shine

hm a battery is not much different to a cd holder.. you take out the cds and its empty

matter can not be destroyed.. im not sure i understand your example, but simply if 2 apples become and orange somehow, that is the apples transforming into an orange.. where else would the orange come from?


I'm sorry, I'm still unsure whether you are arguing that subtraction does not exist or if you are arguing the law of conservation of energy. Or perhaps you are arguing that subtraction does not exist because of the law of conservation.

If you are meaning to argue for the Law of Conservation of Energy (that energy can not be created or destroyed) it is difficult to debate such a thing, as there really isn't any evidence to support any kind of argument. It would be like arguing that gravity did not exist. There really is nothing to dispute.

I was using the apples/oranges analogy to describe how one form of energy could be converted into a different form, even if the two forms have different "densities", while keeping the law of conservation. I was just trying to show that subtraction was taking place within the apples and conserving all the "energy".

Energy isn't a real, physical, thing. A fast-moving ball "has" energy in the same way it "has" speed. It's more difficult to talk about the transfer of energy in this way so I opted to make an analogy that made energy a physical thing (an apple or orange). It just seemed better than saying something like "some of the speed of the ball is transfered into the volume of the sound created when the ball hits a wall." In that case it seems just as absurd to think speed can transform somehow into sound intensity, as it does to say 2 apples transform somehow into an orange.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
origin of block button
Posted by MasterDebator99 2 years ago
The dude is trolling, you shouldn't take him seriously.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
information is not matter
Posted by skipsaweirdo 2 years ago
I'm waiting until your opening post matters....I assume it will transform to something that matters eventually.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could not put together a cogent argument. Conversely, Con made their case effectively.