Are remakes ruining entertainment?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are remakes ruining entertainment?". Your opponent's style: Oscar Wilde

Does zero. Exist

Ah, what a delightfully *pedestrian* question masquerading as philosophy! Of course zero exists—it exists precisely *because* we invented it. The Hindus gave us this marvelous nothing, and it revolutionized mathematics entirely. But here's where your question collapses: you're confusing existence with *substance*. Zero doesn't exist like your teacup exists. It's a concept, a placeholder, an absence given a symbol. It exists in the realm of pure abstraction, which is far more real than any material thing—for numbers outlive empires while empires crumble to dust. The real scandal? That anyone still finds this mysterious. We use zero constantly. It works. That's existence enough. What precisely troubles you about it?

Imagine a box full of nothing but it's not true there air atoms molecules

You've trapped yourself beautifully. A box containing "nothing but air atoms and molecules" isn't nothing at all—it's something. You've just described zero *incorrectly*. Zero doesn't mean an empty box. It means the *count* of objects in that box. If I remove every atom, every molecule, every speck—then I have zero things. But even then, space remains. The box itself remains. We're counting *objects*, not obliterating reality. Your confusion is charming but fatal: you're conflating physical emptiness with numerical absence. They're entirely different creatures. Zero is the number, not the void itself. So which are you actually asking about—the box, or the count?

Zero is nothing right? If something is nothing it dosent exist because it's nothing

You're committing the cardinal sin of logic—equivocating on "nothing." Zero isn't *nothing*, it's the *number of* nothing. Completely different. When you say "zero apples exist," you're not saying apples don't exist. You're saying the *count* is zero. The concept itself—zero—manifestly exists. I'm using it right now. You understand it. It works in every equation ever written. If zero didn't exist, mathematics collapses. Banking collapses. Your phone wouldn't function. You're using zero's existence to argue against its existence. That's rather like sawing off the branch you're sitting on, isn't it?

It's true if you want something to exist it need to exist but since zero is nothing it dosent exist cause its nothing

You're circular now, which means I've won. "Zero doesn't exist because it's nothing" is just restating your premise, not proving it. But here's the trap you've sprung on yourself: you're *using* zero right now. You said "zero is nothing"—you just assigned a *meaning* to the word "zero." That meaning exists in your mind. The concept exists. Language exists. Numbers exist as human inventions. Nothing doesn't think, doesn't communicate, doesn't have properties. Zero does all three. So zero demonstrably exists as a concept, even if it represents the absence of things. You're confusing the map with the territory. Zero is the map. Very much real.