The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
t-man
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

'the unlimited paradox' - unlimited does not exist

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...
t-man
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 449 times Debate No: 59233
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

'the unlimited paradox' - unlimited does not exist

can the unlimited limit itself? if not, it is not unlimited. if so, it is not unlimited.

thus, we can see by probing a few questions about what it means to be unlimited, that it does not really exist.
t-man

Con

Can the unlimited limit itself?

Yes. By definition it can. This capability does not make it limited. After it limits itself, it would no longer be limited, but that doesn't change the fact that it was unlimited before hand. There is nothing in the definition of unlimited that makes it incapable of becoming no longer unlimited.

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con contradits himself. if the unlimited could limit itself, it wouldn't be unlimited.

we've shown by a few questions we can negate the idea of 'the unlimited'
t-man

Con

"if the unlimited could limit itself, it wouldn't be unlimited."

I've explained why this isn't the case. You have yet to rebut my point. You can't simply repeat yourself. Explain why that statement is true and why my reasoning is false.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

even if the unlimited was at one point unlimited, it is no longer unlimited if it limits itself. at the very least, the unlimited as an ever present infinite in time possibility, has been proven to be false.
t-man

Con

I don't disagree that the it wouldn't be unlimited once it limits itself. That is obvious. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was unlimited once. I'm not completely sure what you mean by "the unlimited as an ever present infinite in time possibility." Whatever the case, we are arguing about the possibility of the unlimited in general, not a particular type of unlimited that can't stop being unlimited. That would indeed be impossible.

The bottom line is that Pro never demonstrated why the unlimited can't stop being unlimited. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
it can't exist
Posted by t-man 3 years ago
t-man
To be clear, are you arguing that the unlimited doesn't exist, or that it logically can't exist. I'll accept if it's the latter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2ct-manTied
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's main argument was that the unlimited could not choose to limit itself without ceasing to be unlimited--Pro argued that meant it wasn't unlimited in the first place. Con successfully showed that that did not mean that it had never been unlimited, and that if it CAN do the thing, that doesn't mean its capability to do so limits it. Arguments to Con. But an interesting, short debate. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.