CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Which is the largest number?
Does numbers have an end? Most os us answer a "NO". But using sense we understand that anything that has a beginning definitely has an end. When it comes to numbers we say that numbers have a beginning without an end. THAT'S NONSENSE. Everything in this world has a beginning and an END, so why can't numbers has an end, when there's a beginning!!! Things that does have a beginning and end are spiritual and related to GOD. GOD doesn't have a beginning, so he does't have an end. So numbers should have an end!!!! As far as we think, we don't reach at the end. Numbers are really a mere imagination i guess. So i guess its time for us to change our concept of numbers. Really in my opinion ONLY ONE NUMBER EXISTS AND IT IS '1'.
Agreed Anonymous, ( is that your real name?,ha ), as any figure less than one becomes a fraction. An integral number, consisting of one or more units WITHOUT FRACTIONS. However, numbers can be increased into infinity.
Not necessarily. Minus numbers can be quantitative in terms of circuitry, such as voltage and current. The largest number is never reachable as any number you state could just have another number added to it to make a bigger number.
How can a number become too long? At what point does it go from long to too long? Of course you can just add a number on at the end. Just because it would be a number too incomprehensible for our minds, doesn't mean it couldn't exist.
There is no end to numbers. Take, for example, the size of the observable universe, which is about 96 billion light years in diameter (as it is considered a sphere) and turn that figure into nanometres: 908,210,726,868,419,947,319,797,905,096,704,000nm .
It is a very big number indeed, however, you could always add on another '1' to the end of that number and it would be bigger, hence numbers have no end.
No I didn't say that. Infinity isn't a number, it is a concept of something that is never ending. Take pi, it is a number with an infinite number of decimal places, which essentially makes it the biggest 'string' of numbers, however not the biggest number. The biggest number may very well be infinite, but then that agrees with my point that it is essentially endless.
Infinity and infinite are different things. Infinite means something that never ends or seems to be endless. Infinity is a symbol used to conceptualise something that never ends. Infinity is not a number. When I said that the biggest number is 'infinite' I mean that it is bound to have no end, otherwise it wouldn't be the biggest number. You not being able to understand this isn't me being deluded.
Numbers don't have a beginning, so they don't have an end. What comes before 1? 0. What comes before 0? -1. What comes before that, and before that, and before that? There is always another number, so no beginning. Since there is no beginning there does not have to be an end.
0 is nothing that means -1 is also nothing. That which has no quantity, can not be large or small. 1 is the beginning of quantity which means there is a beginning to numbers. Checkmate, Atheist.
Are you saying someone who is in debt $2000 owes as much as the person who is in debt $20? Numbers don't have to represent your skewed idea of quantity to be considered smaller.
There's no such thing as negative money but if there was then that would mean that any money they obtained would literally vanish as soon as they got it until their debt was paid.
That isn't a counter to my argument, you must have realized the idiocy of your arguments. I was never supporting that a largest number does exist or doesn't exist, but was simply pointing out the error in your reasoning.
L to the O to the L. You act tough, yet you couldn't even defend your argument any further. Get real. I see why you're called Cartman. It's because you're always losing fights and have to be carted to the emergency room.
I love verbal sparring as well as physical sparring, but I take it that you aren't serious. Pity how the internet makes people want to act like something they aren't.
It is really weird to hear the pathetic guy on the website who is acting tough tell me that I am pathetic and acting tough. Next thing you will accuse me of is creating my account based off someone else's account.
If that was true then you would have countered my argument, but instead you forfeited your reasoning and used a red herring.
As a matter of fact, because of your use of a red herring, it makes it more likely that you don't understand how numbers work and don't understand the term 'defeat'.
My argument is still open for dispute if you actually wish to continue with something relevant.
If that was true then you would have countered my argument, but instead you forfeited your reasoning and used a red herring.
No, like I said. If your argument is not based on reality there is no counter for it.
As a matter of fact, because of your use of a red herring, it makes it more likely that you don't understand how numbers work and don't understand the term 'defeat'.
You don't know how debt works.
My argument is still open for dispute if you actually wish to continue with something relevant.
It is not open for dispute because it is not a true statement.
, like I said. If your argument is not based on reality there is no counter for it.
It is based on reality, prove it isn't. Oh let me guess, you don't feel like it.
You don't know how debt works.
You owe someone money. Still isn't negative money, moron. No such thing.
It is not open for dispute because it is not a true statement.
You used a red herring thus aborting your attempt to prove that it isn't a true statement. You just love ignoring the situation and resorting to this BS.
Get back to the original debate or just shut the fuck up bitch. You aren't accomplishing anything but making yourself a fool.
But you said that "an argument that isn't based on reality has no counter". Showing that it isn't based on reality is a counter for it. But since you've technically admitted that you didn't provide a counter for it, then you never really did prove that it wasn't based on reality.
It is. How about negative yards in football? If you run for negative yards do you have to go further on the next play to get a first down?
Even if you call it -20 yards, it's still actually 20 yards.
I gave you a proper example. Just because you think it is a red herring doesn't make it so.
We were discussing whether negative numbers actually have quantity or not then you asked me "what is the largest number? Asking me that is the red herring.
I tried to and you claimed it had nothing to do with the debate.
Showing that it isn't based on reality is a counter for it.
Um, yeah. But when the idiot you are talking to doesn't get it he will call it a red herring.
But since you've technically admitted that you didn't provide a counter for it, then you never really did prove that it wasn't based on reality.
Actually, technically I did by adding the word again.
Even if you call it -20 yards, it's still actually 20 yards.
Nope. That's why we have negative numbers. If it were still 20 yards, you could get a first down by running in the wrong direction.
We were discussing whether negative numbers actually have quantity or not then you asked me "what is the largest number? Asking me that is the red herring.
No, that is literally the debate question.
Bulldip.
No, bulldip is calling the debate question a red herring.
Neither of us.
You are half right. Which is about half more than usual.
You don't understand how anything in the real world works. There is no way to explain to you how the real world works if that is the case. Enjoy your imagination.
What logically follows from that response, is that there is no way to explain anything to anyone who doesn't have the understanding already. Which is clearly false, based on the fact that we have many mentors for many different subjects which have successfully educated many people, by explaining something to the people that they had not had the understanding of beforehand.
Ad hominems only show how battered and wounded you are from a loss that was inevitable.
Ad hominem is not only in the form of an insult, it is any irrelevant response which is directed at the person's character rather than their argument. You could be giving the person a compliment in response to their argument and it would still be an ad hominem.
It is not directed at your character, it is directed at your abilities. You have no character. There is nothing I can do to help you. You claim that negative numbers have no quantity, but when I give you examples you claim that they have a quantity. You can't be reasoned with.
What number set are you talking about? The natural numbers?
I believe you meant the natural numbers, {0,1,2,3, ...}. For the sake of argument, lets assume that the natural numbers don't go on forever. Then there must be some largest number, n. But then n + 1 is a larger number, and n therefore can't be the largest number. This contradicts the assumption that the natural numbers don't go on forever, and no number can thus be the largest Q.E.D.
Side note, there exists finite number sets with a unique largest number.
there is another interpretation of numbers where 0 is the largest, and any number, such as 1, is 0 with its negative counterpart subtracted from it 1 = 0 - -1. here, 0 is all numbers.
As we know Numbers don't have a starting point, so they don't have an ending point . No One can Tell what comes before 1? 0. What comes before 0? -1. What comes before that, and before that, and before that? There is always another number, so no beginning. Since there is no beginning there does not have to be an end.
0 is nothing that means -1 is also nothing. That which has no quantity, can not be large or small. 1 is the beginning of quantity which means there is a beginning to numbers. Checkmate, Atheist.
Something important a teacher told me about numbers: Numbers are made the way we define them. Why wasn't 2 our 1? Because, we defined it that way. So, you CAN create a set of numbers (i.e integers b/w -3 and 3) that would have an end, but the way the number system is currently defined is that the number line goes on to infinity.
Numbers have no end. A number can go on for infinity. If someone started on a number today, he or she could still be adding digits to that number 10 years from now.
