The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force doesnt exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 59514
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force 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, at least in terms of being ever present.
9spaceking

Con

Unlimited can limit and not limit itself at the same time. It can leap the way we know logic.

I am challenging myself to not include more than 500 characters each round, and no more than 50 words per round, since I am facing such this noob.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

even if it could do both at the same time, it would still face the same problems, not being able to limit it self showing it is unlimited, and limiting itself, again showing it is unlimited.
9spaceking

Con

If it is truly unlimited it can show itself as limited while still being unlimited.

These lines look NOT parallel but in reality are parallel.

Thus, if parallel lines can look skewered while still being parallel, the unlimited force can show itself as limited while still being unlimited.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con has pretty much dropped his past arguments and has moved on.

con argues the unlimited can make itself look limited. this isn't however actually limiting itself as the questions asked.

also, the example con gave is not even making itself look limited. he shows sraight lines that are suppose to look crooked. first i don't know how what he says is true that they are paraellel. also, even if they were, it doesnt prove itself as an example of an unlimited entity.
9spaceking

Con

I am showing that something can mess with our minds. Not to mention that the parralel lines were invented by humans, that unlimited force can definitely show to limit itself while still being unlimited if we limited humans can show parralel lines to be crooked and weird.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
bwahaha. looks like I'll succeed after all. I admit, I'm mean by offending my opponent, but it's true. I'm winning by twice as much points even though I didn't even use up to 150 words in total XD
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dangit lol...
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
haha ;D
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
noob-snipe: hardcore mode
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
dairygirl4u2c9spacekingTied
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: Con showed via analogy and rhetoric that an unlimited being can transcend human logic.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
dairygirl4u2c9spacekingTied
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 really needs to do more to meet he BOP. She put in no effort and con's rebuttals were pretty much ignored.
Vote Placed by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
dairygirl4u2c9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro mistook the illusion. The lines are in fact parallel. Con almost lost conduct for accusing the pro as a noob. Con made arguments equally convincing as pro. By showing that the unlimited can make it seem as if its not. Pros rebuttal was unconvincing and also misunderstood the diagram. Ultimately con wins this one although pros argument is sound. Con brings up more arguments that pro fails to properly rebut. No, actually i am going to give conduct loss for con. Pretentiousness isnt very polite and pro was a good debater nevertheless. Also i will give source points to con for the diagram. Great job on the debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2c9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: "noob". Pro showed a contradiction. Con, perception is irrelevant.