0 is an even number?
Debate Rounds (3)
Okay so now let's look at this from a statistical point of view. It's said that 0 is even because of it being divisible by 2. Well yeah sure it is. It gives you the same number. But it's also said that if you multiply any number by an even number, you'll get an even number. Now just for this time, let's say 0 is neutral. Just really fast at this point in time please.. 2x1=2(even) 2x2=4(even) 2x3=6(even) 2x0=0(?) We got the same number back. Oh yeah, anything multiplied by 0 is 0. This even rule doesn't apply here.
Now this isn't a very valid argument because the y-axis doesn't have a true slope, but I feel as it is worth bringing up. The slopes of perpendicular lines, when multiplied together, are suppose to equal -1. But if you look at the x and y axis, x-axis having a slope of 0, multiplied by "undefined" which is obviously something we can't do, would give us -1? But I thought if you multiply an even number by anything, you'd get an even number back. But because the y-axis doesn't ever go left or right, it will infinitely climb to infinity. And yes, infinity is NOT an integer. So that very well disproves this theory, but when you look at a pair of perpendicular lines and translate them over the x and y axis... Why do the rules have to change?
Yes yes yes... There are those wiki fanboys who argue that "oh there's a pattern!" Well... again, consider the meaning of zero. Zero divides positive and even numbers, it is the center of what our number system is. But how can we call it even so easily? Because it spits out a whole number when we divide it by 2 only? In my opinion, I just feel as if a number with very complicated functionality, shouldn't be labeled so easily. It should at least be defined neutral for the bigger meaning of it's true nature.
Well, I'm not sure what to gather from Pro's first argument. He didn't really go into why 0 wasn't a number, he just went on about how it represents a lack of value.
"I have 0 dogs" = "I have no dogs"
So? "I have 1 dog" = "I have a single dog". I don't see the point. Replacing the number with a word doesn't make the number non-existent.
You can't think of nothing. Therefore 0 is not a number!
Completely non-secular. There are many things the human brain cannot think of, that doesn't make them non-existant. For example, can you think of radiation? No? That's because you can't sense radiation, only see it's effects.
So, what I'm getting at is that 0 representing the non-value does not affect it's role as a number. A number is simply a representation of a value. The lack of a positive of negative value is still a value. Otherwise there'd be no difference between 100 and 1.
The whole thing about 0 being even is irrelevant to the resolution, but I guess I'll address it anyway.
As long as a number follows the rules of being even, it is even correct? Well, a common rule with evens is they come between odds. 1->2<-3
The same goes for 0. -2, -1->0<-1, 2
Adding an even number to an even number makes an even number. 2+2=4 0+2=2
Adding an odd number to an even number makes an odd number. 3+2=5 0+3=3
Zero divides evenly into everything. If I give 20 friends 0 dollars. Everybody gets 0 dollars. No remainder
Zero is also not odd.
Adding an odd number to an odd number makes an even number 3+3=6 5+0=5 5 is not even.
"Completely non-secular. " I wasn't trying to show that my ideas are completely true because anyone can disagree with me. It's the simple fact that zero IS complicated. Mathematics has so many imperfections, so why give this one exception if all these complications come up? Regardless, I'm debating that fact that Zero does indeed show or create an image of nothing. What I'm not saying is that zero is nothing, because that's wrong. Zero is a number, but a number that completely is void. Think about what 1 means, it can mean anything. 1 can be categorical as well as being quantitative. "I have 1 apple. I have 1 set of basketballs" My point is that not it's identity to real life and nature, but to it's definition.
"As long as a number follows the rules of being even, it is even correct? Well, a common rule with evens is they come between odds. 1->2<-3
The same goes for 0. -2, -1->0<-1, 2"
Yes, I totally agree with the pattern. But look at 0's functionality. You can't raise 0 to the 0th power. You can't divide anything into 0. Not even itself. You can divide any number by itself, which will be 1 of course. Same goes with irrational numbers and negatives and pies and cakes and dogs and cats! "I will divide my 6 cats with 6 people" Everyone gets one. But if you have 0 divided by 0, it's actually an error as well. But the fact of the matter is, is that basically what I'm trying to prove is that zero is super complicated. We started counting with our fingers, 1, 2, 3, 4. Negatives haven't been around forever either.
"Zero is also not odd." I know this!! Again, I will keep saying this... I'm just trying to get my opinion across that zero should be neither. It should be neutral. Zero follows such a small set of rules for being even. I view that logic as, for example(Not very relevant) But if you had a the argument "Tomatoes are a vegetable" Then you have a person "No, tomatoes are fruits scientifically" Yes, but in certain locations tomatoes are vegetables because they are used as vegetables. My point is that in technicalities zero is even. Without a doubt zero is even. I just view it as, yeah sure but like what about everything else about zero? It's such an interesting number because you can't do a whole lot with it, yet it's the most important number in Algebra. Algebra is the study of truth and what not, and you need that line of real and fake. So why is it that we can say for example, "If zero divided by 2 equals zero then zero is even, then is it wrong to say, If zero isn't even then zero does not equal zero divided by 2." Right? That does sound weird to read, but it must be true. Which in actuality it isn't. I simply used a contrapositive towards the original statement. And as you know, a contrapositive MUST be true to it's original statement.
And as a side note, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said once that zero isn't a number, because it is. Not trying to get mad at you or anything, just trying to prove a point is all.
My last arguments were based on the resolution "Is 0 even a number"
This was a misread on my part. I apologize to Pro for accusing him of making a claim he didn't make. Those arguments are void as they did not support my side of the debate.
However, regardless of this hiccup, my opponent has yet to prove that 0 is an even number.
Let's remember that he is Pro and must support the resolution "0 is an even number." So I have no idea why he is providing arguments that state otherwise.
Furthermore, my opponent has yet to provide an argument that supports that resolution, so I have nothing to refute this round.
I hope Pro can provide some kind of evidence to support his side of the argument next round. Otherwise his BoP will remain unfullfilled.
My resolution is "0 is an even number?" I should have restated the title and added, a "why?" So I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. But here is my true, 100% statement.
I believe Zero is not an even number, even though by definition it is, because of its complex nature.
Thank you for responding to me, and hopefully you can make a great opposing statement for your last argument. Even if you don't disagree with me, I understand because of how unclear I was. So I'm sorry about that. Again, I believe zero is not an even number because of its complex nature, even though it is by definition. And again, if you have any questions please re-read my arguments because all of my opinions are in it. I hope Con can create a nice opinion on why it MUST be an even number, other than the fact by definition it is.
Again I don't think it is an even number because of its complex nature, but by definition it is indeed an even number.
Well, my opponent has completely failed to fulfill his BoP.
He has actually supported my side of the argument by showing how 0 isn't an even number.
While I understand he believes this as true, according to the resolution, he must show why it is even. Because he is Pro, regardless of intent.
So, seeing as he did no such thing, my opponent has provided no argument for his side and therefore provides nothing for me to refute.
Next time, pick the side you believe in Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|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: I'm nulling this debate. It went far too strangely--too many questions about what "Pro" or "con" meant. TBH, though, I don't think Pro would have won anyway, given what I think Pro's position was. She says that she admits it's a number, but that it shouldn't be even. But her R1 arguemnt even notes that it meets the criteria for even. I would suggest she focus a lot more on why THAT should make it special. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.