The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
SGM_iz_SekC
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

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 4 votes the winner is...
SGM_iz_SekC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 58757
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

weakest point. the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist.

better point. an immovable rock cannot be created that can be lifted by an unstoppable force.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

BoP lies on pro, as they have not made any arguments that would protect their claim.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

this is just as valid an approach as the 'god paradox'.

i made arguments, in fact, unlike con suggests. perhaps con hasn't read the opening post.

con hasn't even attempted to engage in it.

thus, con fails the debate.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

Pro has not fulfilled the BoP with the opening statement, and likely will bother to do so in the final round, therefor losing the debate.
In fact, I engaged the argument by stating, that pro does not fulfill the BoP.
Does pro even know what the BoP is? Pro has not provided any evidence that would require retaliation, thus not fulfilling BoP, thus losing the debate.
An immovable object and an unstoppable force cannot exist at the same time, because it would require one of those to be a false statement, such as the immovable object into a movable object, or an unstoppable force into a stoppable force, which causes the paradox.

Pro should lose points for good arguments and correct grammar.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

well con finally responds to the debate after somehow arguing that he doesn't need to, but does any way. con does not understand BOP and especially the debate format. even if someone isn't fulfilling a BOP, con should still respond as to why, and such.

the debate structure is no different than the God paradox. how is it not?

if the unlimited is truly unlimited, it should be able to create an immovable rock. if the unlimited is truly unlimited, it should not be limited by an otherwise immovable rock.

if the an unlimited force creates an immovable rock for five seconds, the unlimited force cannot create an unstoppable force and thus move the rock in that five second time frame. notice 'cannot'. thus the unlimited is not truly unlimited.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

My opponent does not fulfill BoP.
Here is why.

"the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea"
"the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist."
Which pro never stated what about the 'unlimited paradox' was false in the first round, or the topic.
An immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. This is correct, thus proving me right. The statement itself is correct, because if the immovable object can be moved, then it is not immovable. If the unstoppable force can be stopped by the object, then it is not unstoppable.

The only logical way to vote on this debate is con, because pro has not fulfilled BoP, has used incorrect grammar, and is rude. Pro needs to provide evidence to fulfill BoP, but no evidence to fulfill BoP has been introduced, therefor I win this debate in all aspects.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
RFD:
Both parties had some rude moments.
Neither used sources.
Pro had some minor spelling errors, but Con had none.

Pro gave the argument/premise that the "unlimited paradox" is false. He has argued this by saying there can not be two opposing infinite/unlimited forces. This satisfies BoP unless refuted by Con.

Con did not refute this point. Actually Con agreed with it.
In Round 3 Con said:
"An immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. This is correct, thus proving me right. The statement itself is correct, because if the immovable object can be moved, then it is not immovable. If the unstoppable force can be stopped by the object, then it is not unstoppable."

This does not prove Con right, it proves Pro right. Pro stated the Unlimited Paradox is false BECAUSE there can not be opposing forces. Con has agreed there cannot be two opposing forces as well in his quote. Thus helping Pro's argument in proving the falsehood of the Unlimited Paradox.
Posted by SGM_iz_SekC 2 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
Then that should have been the topic, not what the topic is now.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
he surely means that you can't have two infinitely opposing forces like that, but that if the unlimited truly existed, it's arguable that those forces should be said to be able to exist.

but then if they do exist, one or both of the forces won't be infinite.

'the unlimited can limit itself' is what con is arguing. 'the unlimited can't limit itself, but that still makes it unlimited' is what pro is arguing.
Posted by SGM_iz_SekC 2 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
@Fuzzycatpotato, that is what I was debating FOR. PRo was debating against that by saying it was a false statement!
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
at best it escalated in terms of rudeness. to act as if there was nothing to respond to was so ridiculous it's effectively rude conduct. i may have added a little more rudeness in the next post. you added even more as i quoted you below. you were the one that took things from rude to offensive as quick as you could.
Posted by SGM_iz_SekC 2 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
I stated facts in that statement. You did not acknowledge the BoP, you did not provide evidence to fulfill it, and you lost the debate. You were just overall rude.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i was a little more stark in my 'rude' behavior, but it was con who started it.

"Does pro even know what the BoP is? Pro has not provided any evidence that would require retaliation, thus not fulfilling BoP, thus losing the debate."

the whole opening statement by con was pretty ridiculous itself. for the reasons i stated in the debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
dairygirl4u2cSGM_iz_SekCTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: SGM provided better grammar and spelling throughout the round, so I will award him those points. Daisy Girl, im giving him the arguments because you didn't fulfill the BOP. his job as neg isn't to prove the resolution wrong. Its your job to prove its right! you didn't post any argument until the last post and it was shaky at best, keep working on it and you will get better, next time post arguments even if you don't feel your opponent did.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
dairygirl4u2cSGM_iz_SekCTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cSGM_iz_SekCTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Can't have two infinite, opposite forces.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
dairygirl4u2cSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con argued better, and Pro's conduct was fairly poor.