The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

7.9 is a smaller number than 37,256.38

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,235 times Debate No: 36098
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




It surprised me that so many people go for the con of this topic. I would be interested to see some of their arguments. Good luck to my opponent in the following rounds.

Round 1: acceptance only
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thanks my opponent for accepting this challenge. I wish him luck.

First off:
It is very obvious that 7.9 is a smaller number than 37,256.38 because using basic math taught in elementary schools, 37,256.38 gets 37,248.48 after subtracting 7.9 from it. There is nothing more to it and it is merely impossible for 37,256.38 to be a smaller number than 7.9, whether it's in value, size, area, or length.
I'm looking forward to seeing his arguments.


37 is a higher number than 7.9
37,256 is a higher number than 7.9
37,256.38 is higher than 7.90

Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thanks the con for supporting my claim. I wish him luck in the upcoming rounds.




I misread the debate topic. I thought it meant that I was arguing in favor of 37, 256.38 being greaterthan 7.9.


I forfeit.

Your comment in round 3 is one of the funniest things I've ever seen!
Debate Round No. 3


You forfeit? You could continue supporting my claim if you want. I won't mind.
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to thanks the con for giving me a nice and friendly debate. It was very enjoyable. Thanks.


no problem. Let's do this again sometime.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by siddharth1 5 years ago
comparison of numbers alone is taught to us in elementary school, but when we grow up we came to know that comparison of numbers alone does not mean anything, the important thing is that what they are measuring so 7.9 is big if its measuring something very big and at the same time 37,256.38 is measuring something small, they cannot be compared at all if one is measuring weight while other is measuring distance. So two numbers can be greater than, smaller than, equal to, not comparable to each other depending on what they are measuring..
Just trying to give a new point because if we only compare the numerical value, 37,256.38 is definitely bigger.
Saying again, the only argument I can find in favor of con.
Posted by quezzi 5 years ago
I dunno, everyone knows that 7 has eaten 9 in the past- given how close they are, maybe we should say whatever 7.9 wants....
Posted by Pandas 5 years ago
I'm sorry.. I meant 1490 millimeters is taller than 1.5 meters
Posted by Pandas 5 years ago
Saying that, it's like saying I'm taller than you because I'm 1500 millimeters tall and you're only 1.49 meters tall.
Posted by siddharth1 5 years ago
go for 7.9 light-years vs 37,256.38 kms (only plausible argument against the pro, take the debate away from mathematics.)
Posted by Ragnar 5 years ago
The panda bear is likely going to argue the size of the number, not the numerical value.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
You idiot, people were going con because they were joking....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Piccini 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con misread the debate, Pro wins