The Instigator

Pro (for)

Tied

0 Points

The Contender

Con (against)

screenjack

Tied

0 Points

1-0-1 maybe?

Add to My FavoritesReport this DebateShare with My Friends

Do you like this debate?No Yes+0

Post Voting Period

The voting period for this debate has ended.

after 0 votes the winner is...

It's a Tie!

Voting Style:	Open	Point System:	7 Point
Started:	3/6/2019	Category:	Philosophy
Updated:	3 years ago	Status:	Post Voting Period
Viewed:	606 times	Debate No:	120524

Debate Rounds (4)

Comments (18)

Votes (0)

Pro Based on a theoretical assumption that reduction can be ultimate rather than remain infinite. 1-0-1 or something-nothing-something. Suggests an alternating left to right/ right to left flow of matter. Resulting in a scenario that allows for infinitely uninhibited imagination. Report this Argument Con Just to be clear, Your claim is that the universe has and ultimate conclusion that it will revert to? Are you also theorizing that we can move between these plains? I don't believe we could reach this conclusion rationally. Rationally as in from a scientific view. Purely theoretically The dream state offers uninhibited imagination and has no need for any worldly postulates. My point being that we do not need multiple dimensions theory to imagine possible scenario. When you say 1-0-1 I think of pulse theory. It's pretty much like it sounds. The theory states that the universe is pulsing and that the big bang was just one pulse of many. I would start to debunk this theory by stating that there is no evidence the universe is or has any intention of condensing back to "0. " With this pulse theory you still run into the same problems of St. Thomas Aquines theories. I won't repeat them if you already know them but I'll probably reference back to them. (I ran out of words too) Report this Argument
Pro Firstly let's make it clear that I do not claim anything. I propose a simple philosophical theory, Which might loosely incorporate some basic scientific understanding. Creation/initiation theories whether that be God or Big Bangs tend to overlook 0 and start either at 1 or somewhere in between. Something from nothing is what intrigues me and this proposal simply provides an explanation for 0. An ultimate beginning is as yet another issue, Requiring further thought. I would certainly question your notion of universal intention. I would suggest universal inevitability. Whereby all potential/matter is subject to a continuous sequence. In brief: if there is an ultimate state then this infers no numerical infinite. Therefore suggesting no fractional infinite. Thereby 0 is inevitable. The rapidity and strength of fractional flow 1 - 0 enables a comparable flow 0 - 1. I apologise for the character limitation. But more often than not debaters either have very little to offer or forfeit. Report this Argument Con So the reason you have a problem with debaters having nothing to offer is quite simple. Debaters argue the truth of claims. If you don't make a solid claim and continue to "move the goal posts" then there is no debate. As the Pro you are supposed to defend a claim and I'm supposed to contend it. I can accept that a theory you purpose may not have the ability to be scientifically verified due to lack of data. I still expect to be able to disprove the claim with logic. So onto your (not) claim. "if there is an ultimate state then this infers no numerical infinite. " What are the perimeters for an ultimate state? Are you referring to an ultimate end? "Therefore suggesting no fractional infinite. " If there is an ultimate end then infinite would have a point and we could fraction the timeline from point to point. "Thereby 0 is inevitable. " Or 0 already was. "The rapidity and strength of fractional flow 1 - 0 enables a comparable flow 0 - 1. " (1-0=1) u (0-1=-1) no fraction required. Report this Argument
This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. Con screenjack forfeited this round.

Post a Comment

18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.

Posted by screenjack 3 years ago

Well if you agree with the postulate that energy = mass * speed of light ^2 then we could make a graph in Descartes Cartesian coordinate system and graph how existence comes to be.

Report this Comment

Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago

Yes.

Report this Comment

Posted by screenjack 3 years ago

did you get to read my last debate round?

Report this Comment

Posted by screenjack 3 years ago

haha yeah all the political points I make are whatever but holy crap this guy understands y=mc^2 fn get him.

Report this Comment

Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago

I see what you mean.

Unfortunately debate. Org is prone to such glitches.

Or maybe they have been taken down by a secret government organisation!

Report this Comment

Posted by screenjack 3 years ago

what happened to our last two rounds of debate?

Report this Comment

Posted by screenjack 3 years ago

Theory is an attempt to prove thesis. Thesis supported with facts. Ex. Gravity. Force=mass*acceleration. We test this theory with facts. Gravity applies force to mass and it accelerates towards the earth. It is a theory because we cannot test it to be universally true. It can still be assumed to be universally true.

Report this Comment

Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago

Theory is the antithesis of fact. Uncertainty and certainty.

Report this Comment

Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago

Theories are factual

Report this Comment

Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago

Most theories are based on unfounded guesswork.

Report this Comment

12 Next »

No votes have been placed for this debate.