If someone used a sword capable of destroying anything hit...

a shield capable of withstanding any blow, which item would win in that fight of hypothetical items?

Yes, I did get this idea off of robot chicken, but think about it for a second.

Would the sword be blocked or destroyed? or would the sheild be destroyed?

In my opinion, I think both would explode upon hitting each other like matter and antimatter would. At least in my opinion.

What do you think would happen if said items struck each other?

It's a paradox, so it's impossible to answer. Scientifically, the situation would be impossible on both ends.

wat

If the end point is that it's impossible to determine, why ask the question?  

Weapon technology tends to be step ahead of armor technology.  So the sword would win, but this is a stupid question anyways.

Neither could exist, much less simultaneously. The question itself is broken.

The question has no answer.

Nothing.

Dude with the shield loses as eventually the dude with the sword maneuvers around his shield and kills him.  Duh.

Nothing would happen when they hit each other. The sword would bounce off and the shield user would be staggered. Then the guy with the gun shoots both of them in the face.

UNSTOPPABLE FORCE VS IMMOVABLE OBJECT.

Fight!

i think it would be an equal battle. the person with the sword hit the shield and they both would bounce backward. this is a hard question because there is no way of figuring it out because it's fake.

There isn't enough information about the objects in play. It's impossible to draw a conclusion.

The problem with "unstoppable force vs. immovable object" is that it is, by definition, impossible for both of them to exist in the same universe.  Hypothetically you could have on or the other, but the instant the second one is introduced, regardless of whether or not they are brought into conflict, the properties that define them are negated.

It's not profound, it's just an example of how ambiguities in language allow you to create nonsensical questions.

They'd cancel each other out and lose their respective abilities D=

Therefore becoming just a normal shield and sword.

The sword would destroy the shield, and then the shield would block it anyways.

Conclusion 1: Since they both have equal power the sword would continue to hit the shield endlessly and both their abilities would be negated.  The sword is capable of destroying anything but it was never stated that it can't be destroyed itself.  So eventually the blade would break.
Conclusion 2: If actual people were skillfully fighting instead of just clashing the sword and shield back and forth then the dude with the sword would eventually just stab his opponent.
Conclusion 3: The second the sword was swung it would immediately begin to destroy everything it hit. This would include air, gravity, matter, space, and time thus leaving only the sword as the only remaining object in a non existent universe.

There is an answer for everything!

It is impossible for both of those things to exist in the same universe because simply having a sword that could destroy anything means that there's absolutely nothing that could withstand it's blows, therefore there could be no shield that could withstand any blow.

Robot Chicken got this idea from a book or it might have been a game. I swear I've heard this before.

Sword would win.

This

swords don't kill people....rappers do

I'm pretty sure this could be solved via World of Warcraft. The Unstoppable Force andThe Immovable Object were both epic weapons back in the day. If you ask a GM what happens when the two collide, they'll probably say something like "Chuck Norris dies" ...this was 2005, mind you. Back when Chuck Norris jokes were funny.

If you got this idea from Robot Chicken you are sheltered.

Can god create a rock that even he can not lift?

Considering the entire concept of this tale is constructed from the Chinese origin story of the world for "contradiction" (just replace the sword with a spear), the answer is "no, that's a stupid question, and you're wrong for asking it."

" If the end point is that it's impossible to determine, why ask the question?   "

So your question is what would happen if 2 impossible things existed and came into contact? Im gonna say some third impossible thing would occur. Mindblowing.

" @Brendan said:

" If the end point is that it's impossible to determine, why ask the question?   "

To be a smug asshole. Stop being smug, asshole. These questions got old by the end of 8th grade. "

" @CH3BURASHKA said:

" @Brendan said:

" If the end point is that it's impossible to determine, why ask the question?   "

To be a smug asshole. Stop being smug, asshole. These questions got old by the end of 8th grade. "

What about my question was smug?  I simply want to know why someone would ask a question they know has no answer. "

You would lose your ability to procreate.

" So your question is what would happen if 2 impossible things existed and came into contact? Im gonna say some third impossible thing would occur. Mindblowing. "

The shield is specified as being able to withstand any blow, the sword on the other hand is just defined by being able to destroy anything it hits, it doesn't say that it's the blow itself responsible for the destruction. The shield would stop the blow, but be destroyed by the magical properties of the sword.

A sword that can cut through anything (i.e. an unstoppable force) is impossible since it would need to have infinite energy. In the same way a shield that can block any attack (i.e. an immovable object) is also impossible since it require infinite inertia (i.e. infinite mass). Even if an object that has infinite inertia and hence infinite mass were possible, it would simply collapse under the force of gravity and become a black hole. Not exactly a very effective shield.

The sword would win since you should be able to bypass it if quick

" I'm pretty sure this could be solved via World of Warcraft. The Unstoppable Force andThe Immovable Object were both epic weapons back in the day. If you ask a GM what happens when the two collide, they'll probably say something like "Chuck Norris dies" ...this was 2005, mind you. Back when Chuck Norris jokes were funny. "

Questions like this are stupid.

Since it isn't possible for such things to exist, why think about it?

It cant happen, so why waste your time thinking about the outcome?

" @Brendan said:

" @CH3BURASHKA said:

" @Brendan said:

" If the end point is that it's impossible to determine, why ask the question?   "

To be a smug asshole. Stop being smug, asshole. These questions got old by the end of 8th grade. "

What about my question was smug?  I simply want to know why someone would ask a question they know has no answer. "

I think he was calling the OP a smug asshole, not you. "

Nothing would happen except for a huge sound on impact. and maybe some scratches on both the sword and shield. But that's probably it.

wait wait wait

He never mentioned if you roll for initiative.

Probably nothing. Id pick the sword and aim for the feet.

By their very definitions, these objects cannot coexist. 

This stupid argument has gone on for so long, and it's retarded and not funny nor interesting.

Oh, so it's pretty much like everything on the internet. Nevermind, continue