The number of aircraft carriers necesary to destroy the US military is lower than 11!!
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Aircraft carrier: a large warship which acts as a mobile base for combat ready military aircraft. When deployed they are escorted by a fleet of various other types of warships.
- Destroy: to damage something, especially in a violent way, so that it can no longer be used or no longer exists.
- Military meaning: Destroy is a tactical mission task that physically renders anenemy force combat-ineffective until it is reconstituted. Alternatively, to destroy a combat system is to damage it so badly that itcannot perform its intended function or be restored to a usable condition withoutbeing entirely rebuilt.
- Necessary: That which is absolutely needed : REQUIRED.
- The necesary number in this case is the treshold above which destroying the US military becomes possible.
- CON will not be required to provide an affirmative case, as he has no BoP, he just needs to refute my case. But I will be required to substantiate the resolution and fullfill my BoP.
- Me proving the resolution requires me to demonstrate that the destruction of the US military can be accomplished even if you have less than 11!! aircraft carriers.
- Because the destruction of the US military, if it could potentially be accomplished with less than 11!! aircraft carriers, would prove my point that 11!! carriers is not required.
- The number of particles in the observable universe is somewhere around 10^80, but the gravitational force they generate is insufficient to keep the universe from expanding.
- Forget aircraft carriers. If you had 10^6^40000000 electrons, that would increase the total mass of the universe by a few million orders of magnitude.
- Earth would instantly collapse into the single largest black hole ever seen, and the gravitational waves would move outwards in every direction at the speed of light.
- Anything that these gravitational waves touches, would instantly be dragged towards us. The incredible mass would singlehandedly reverse the expansion of the universe.
- The only things that would not be destroyed by the 11!! aircraft carriers, are the things that move away from us faster than the speed of light.
The number of aircraft carriers necessary to destroy the US military is lower than 11!!
The number of aircraft carriers necessary to destroy the US military is lower than 11 factorial factorial
The number of aircraft carriers necessary to destroy the US military is lower than 11 factorial!
- Permission from the UN to sail your aircraft carrier across international waters.
- A crew of five thousand people with adequate supplies for all of them.
- Large amounts of enriched uranium for the multiple nuclear generators onboard.
- 3 million gallons of jet fuel.
- Five dozen fighter jets.
- Trained jet pilots.
- Cleaning supplies.
All sentences need punctuation, obviously.
I can assure you that 40 million non-functional aircraft carriers would do absolutely nothing to the US military.
The number of aircraft carriers necessary to destroy the US military is lower than 39,916,800!
- A newborn baby does not know French by default.
- A pizza does not have toppings by default.
- An aircraft carrier is not fully stocked by default.
I buy Pro's interpretation of the resolution. Using one exclamation mark to indicate factorial and then a second exclamation mark for emphasis seems way less intuitive than just a double factorial. And as Pro points out, plenty of debate resolutions on this site don't have punctuation.
It seemed undisputed that 11!! aircraft carriers would destroy almost everything in the universe, so such a large number satisfies the resolution, regardless of whether or not the aircraft carriers are fully stocked. Even then, I did think it more intuitive that whoever had the aircraft carriers could at least use them. The "bullet in the wrong direction" analogy seemed like an accurate parallel. (Assuming that the attacker had nukes also seemed outside of the resolution, but they're not required if the attacker has 11! or 11!! aircraft carriers.)
Vote bump
I have something up my sleeve too. . .
11!! is 39916800 factorial, which is greater than 10^(10^7). Pretty sure that's what Benjamin has up his sleeve.
Maybe a country with 11 aircraft carriers could beat the US if the US got caught completely off guard, but that's not very likely.
In prolonged naval warfare, the invading force generally has a disadvantage.
One sufficiently large nuke will fracture the planet, killing all... No aircraft carriers necessary!
But US military has 11 aircraft carriers?