The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Domr
Con (against)
Winning
7 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 3 votes the winner is...
Domr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 58789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

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.
Domr

Con

I accept this debate. I am not 100% sure of the premise, so Pro, please clarify.

Nevertheless, Pro's argument goes against itself. The word unlimited is clearly defined as without limits.

Immovable Objects are not allowed to move.
Unstoppable force is not allowed to cease.

These are limits in an scenario without limits.

The argument made by Pro hinders itself.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con is taking the position 'the unlimited can limit itself'. he takes the position because he dutifully notes that according to our reality, even if those forces could exist, tehy couldn't exist at the same time.

the problem, though, is that this shows that the unlimited is limited by teh fact it can't create two forces like that. or say make an immovable force for ten seconds, would prevent the unstoppable force from being existed for at least ten seconds. the unlimited then would have limits.

so, con takes the position 'the unimited can limit itself' which shows the unlimited is limited, really. and i take the position of 'it's not fair to say the unlimited can limited itself... the unlimited can't limit itself'. but that only again goes to show that it's still not unlimited
Domr

Con

Pro has misinterpreted my argument. I am refuting the point Pro has made regarding these two objects.

My position is: Pro has not made a sufficient argument to claim "the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea"

The only proof Pro has tried to make is in Round 1 is two opposing similar forces cannot exist at the same time. However neither of those forces can exist in an unlimited reality. You cannot argue the "unlimited" by using two forces that clearly state having a limit.

The unlimited is not proven false, at least not by the arguments made by Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

well, i see your point. it's the same arguments i made during the 'god paradox' debates.

i would say that if con's arguments are legit here, they should be legit in the god paradox debate.

it could still be said that there is in fact a limit on the unlimitd, god, in that it can't make to infinitely opposoing forces logically interact as they are suppose to. but this is merely a restraint as a result of logic, reality. so while it could be said to be limiting the unlimited, i'm not sure it's the best argument.
Domr

Con

Pro has agreed to my point in this debate of the unlimited paradox. This is not a debate about the god paradox.


unlimited means without limit.

"immovable object" - you are placing a limit on this object by saying it cannot move. This does not fall into the realm of the
unlimited.



(the god paradox is similar - but it is stating the power of god to create these two opposing forces. not whether or not they exist in an unlimited reality)

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
dairygirl4u2cDomrTied
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: PRO had BoP, but never really made her case.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cDomrTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro pretty much concedes within the final round.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2cDomrTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate never really got off the ground. Con found semantical quibbling with the manner the resolution was phrased, and I feel Pro had trouble responding. I'm nulling this, though. I'm TEMPTED to award the win to Con, I just feel like the argument as run was too semantic to be fair.