the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
SGM_iz_SekC
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/9/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 855 times | Debate No: | 58757 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)
 Pro 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.  Con |
 |
|
Pro i made arguments, in fact, unlike con suggests. perhaps con hasn't read the opening post. con hasn't even attempted to engage in it. thus, con fails the debate. Con In fact, I engaged the argument by stating, that pro does not fulfill the BoP. Does pro even know what the BoP is? Pro has not provided any evidence that would require retaliation, thus not fulfilling BoP, thus losing the debate. An immovable object and an unstoppable force cannot exist at the same time, because it would require one of those to be a false statement, such as the immovable object into a movable object, or an unstoppable force into a stoppable force, which causes the paradox. Pro should lose points for good arguments and correct grammar. |
 |
|
Pro the debate structure is no different than the God paradox. how is it not? if the unlimited is truly unlimited, it should be able to create an immovable rock. if the unlimited is truly unlimited, it should not be limited by an otherwise immovable rock. if the an unlimited force creates an immovable rock for five seconds, the unlimited force cannot create an unstoppable force and thus move the rock in that five second time frame. notice 'cannot'. thus the unlimited is not truly unlimited. Con Here is why. "the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea" "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." Which pro never stated what about the 'unlimited paradox' was false in the first round, or the topic. An immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. This is correct, thus proving me right. The statement itself is correct, because if the immovable object can be moved, then it is not immovable. If the unstoppable force can be stopped by the object, then it is not unstoppable. The only logical way to vote on this debate is con, because pro has not fulfilled BoP, has used incorrect grammar, and is rude. Pro needs to provide evidence to fulfill BoP, but no evidence to fulfill BoP has been introduced, therefor I win this debate in all aspects. |
 |
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Preston 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | SGM_iz_SekC | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: SGM provided better grammar and spelling throughout the round, so I will award him those points. Daisy Girl, im giving him the arguments because you didn't fulfill the BOP. his job as neg isn't to prove the resolution wrong. Its your job to prove its right! you didn't post any argument until the last post and it was shaky at best, keep working on it and you will get better, next time post arguments even if you don't feel your opponent did.
Vote Placed by Domr 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | SGM_iz_SekC | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | SGM_iz_SekC | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Can't have two infinite, opposite forces.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | SGM_iz_SekC | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued better, and Pro's conduct was fairly poor.
Both parties had some rude moments.
Neither used sources.
Pro had some minor spelling errors, but Con had none.
Pro gave the argument/premise that the "unlimited paradox" is false. He has argued this by saying there can not be two opposing infinite/unlimited forces. This satisfies BoP unless refuted by Con.
Con did not refute this point. Actually Con agreed with it.
In Round 3 Con said:
"An immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. This is correct, thus proving me right. The statement itself is correct, because if the immovable object can be moved, then it is not immovable. If the unstoppable force can be stopped by the object, then it is not unstoppable."
This does not prove Con right, it proves Pro right. Pro stated the Unlimited Paradox is false BECAUSE there can not be opposing forces. Con has agreed there cannot be two opposing forces as well in his quote. Thus helping Pro's argument in proving the falsehood of the Unlimited Paradox.
but then if they do exist, one or both of the forces won't be infinite.
'the unlimited can limit itself' is what con is arguing. 'the unlimited can't limit itself, but that still makes it unlimited' is what pro is arguing.
"Does pro even know what the BoP is? Pro has not provided any evidence that would require retaliation, thus not fulfilling BoP, thus losing the debate."
the whole opening statement by con was pretty ridiculous itself. for the reasons i stated in the debate.