the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Domr
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/10/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 617 times | Debate No: | 58789 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)
 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 Nevertheless, Pro's argument goes against itself. The word unlimited is clearly defined as without limits. Immovable Objects are not allowed to move. Unstoppable force is not allowed to cease. These are limits in an scenario without limits. The argument made by Pro hinders itself. |
 |
|
Pro the problem, though, is that this shows that the unlimited is limited by teh fact it can't create two forces like that. or say make an immovable force for ten seconds, would prevent the unstoppable force from being existed for at least ten seconds. the unlimited then would have limits. so, con takes the position 'the unimited can limit itself' which shows the unlimited is limited, really. and i take the position of 'it's not fair to say the unlimited can limited itself... the unlimited can't limit itself'. but that only again goes to show that it's still not unlimited Con My position is: Pro has not made a sufficient argument to claim "the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea" The only proof Pro has tried to make is in Round 1 is two opposing similar forces cannot exist at the same time. However neither of those forces can exist in an unlimited reality. You cannot argue the "unlimited" by using two forces that clearly state having a limit. The unlimited is not proven false, at least not by the arguments made by Pro. |
 |
|
Pro i would say that if con's arguments are legit here, they should be legit in the god paradox debate. it could still be said that there is in fact a limit on the unlimitd, god, in that it can't make to infinitely opposoing forces logically interact as they are suppose to. but this is merely a restraint as a result of logic, reality. so while it could be said to be limiting the unlimited, i'm not sure it's the best argument. Con Pro has agreed to my point in this debate of the unlimited paradox. This is not a debate about the god paradox. unlimited means without limit. "immovable object" - you are placing a limit on this object by saying it cannot move. This does not fall into the realm of the unlimited. (the god paradox is similar - but it is stating the power of god to create these two opposing forces. not whether or not they exist in an unlimited reality) Thank you for the debate. |
 |
Post a Comment
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Domr | 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: PRO had BoP, but never really made her case.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Domr | 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 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: pro pretty much concedes within the final round.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Domr | 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 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: This debate never really got off the ground. Con found semantical quibbling with the manner the resolution was phrased, and I feel Pro had trouble responding. I'm nulling this, though. I'm TEMPTED to award the win to Con, I just feel like the argument as run was too semantic to be fair.
