The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Cometflash
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

1=1 always

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Cometflash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,580 times Debate No: 27438
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (4)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Always: in all scenarios where the sign '=' means 'the same as' and '1' means 'one'

I have a rule:

The point must be made logically, and not mathematically. Math can obviously be used, but not to prove the statement. If you can prove the statement mathematically, I would assume you can also do with logic. So you must explain logically.
Cometflash

Con

I like to thank PRO for creating this debate, and to give me an opportunity to explore even more my thinking.

Since there is no guidelines for what to do in the rounds, and my opponent is already familiar with my demonstration from a different debate, I'll just copy and paste my demonstration here and go farther on when necessary. I like to think my opponent revise this demonstration and had something to rebuttal already in hand, since he so quickly challenge me. I'm really looking forward to see what he has to say.
Hope we ( or at least one of us ) can learn something from this.

This was my demonstration.

Demonstration.

1/2 / 1/2= 1
1+0= 1

Half goes into half 1 time.
The result 1 is the result of how many times 1/2 went into 1/2.

If I had half of an object, and had another half of an object to be filled into, I would still have a half of an object. That half of an object would just be in a container, which I would be able to fill it 1 time.

1 with the addition of 0 remains 1.
1 here is a quantity, which remains the same.

If I had 1 object and I added to no other object, I would just have that same object. The same object would be the same 1, as a whole. 1 object.

One object does not equal half of an object.

Therefore 1/2 / 1/2 (which equals 1)=|=1+0(which also equals 1)
Therefore 1 does not represent the same 1, which results in 1=|=1
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

His demonstration merely shows the many ways that 1=1

Whether you masturbate or have a group sex orgy, the orgasm you reach is an orgasm. In the same way 1=1 whether the method you used to get it is 0.5/0.5 (this is a half divided by a half displayed without confusing amount of '/') or you add 1 to 0, it's still 1 either way.

If you had half an object and had another half of another object to be filled into you would still have half an object whilst the half of the container would just be n a container which you'd be able to fill one time.

If you had one object and added no other object, I would just have that same object. The same object would be the same one as a whole object.

Here is where you fail to understand a very simple mathematical and English language concept. You can never, ever, have half an object. This is because the moment you split an object, you mathematically have two objects. This is because, in English language, an object is not a set size. If you mean to say you have split a original object into two and are filling one half then I still think if you added the halves they would make one.

The issue with your 'object' argument is there's not such thing as half an object. You would just have two objects, not two halves. Thus one object could be filled one time (or more) and your argument in no way has disproved that 1=1.
Cometflash

Con

My opponent is right at one thing, I agreed that when you split an object you now have two objects. However, he wrongly presumed I do not know this, and that I do not understand. Perhaps I should have use "half of and object" in quotations, for a better way to understand my view. Since I failed to do so, I'll explain why this does not change anything. Hopefully my opponent will be able to see that, by spotting my "error" and not acknowledging any other possibility, but the one he deduce, he made an error of his own. By only working around that "error", he really did not advance to anything to disprove what I said.

I'll demonstrate.

A "half of an object" is truly an object, but, is a "half of an object" the same as the whole object that got cut in half? If this is true, 1/2=1.

Let me explain farther. My last opponent* substitute the word object with an apple, there was no problems in that, and my opponent didn't have a problem since he praised my last opponent's* argument.

So let's imagine an apple. If I split this apple in half, can I possibly say that the two halves of the apple are each an apple?

So really, when I used "half of an object" I was simply stating that the object was an object that was acquire by a previously "whole" object.
Even know my opponent did not complain about my use of the word "whole", I guess to make more clear to everyone, I should use "whole" in quotation as well, from now on.

So far my opponent has been able to spot one "mistake" in my presentation, that mistake is in language, and not in the resolution, which this debate is about. However, by pointing my mistake in language, he pretty much help me make my argument more clear. Since by fixing such of mistake, it gives the viewers a better opportunity to see my argument. So I thank my opponent for that.
This also makes for a better way for him to target my argument, which is what I have been awaiting.
So even know my opponent failed to penetrate my argument and really find any flaws, he gained a clearer view of what he is going up against. So despise everything, I feel he had a very good open statement.

I like to end by going through something he said, and hopefully I can help clear things up.

My opponent's words;

"If you mean to say you have split a original object into two and filling one half then I still think if you added the halves they would make one"

I like that my opponent use the word "think", which means he is not sure, I could use this to my advantage, but I do not care to win, I care to explore my ways of thinking, and maybe expand or learn something. By using the word "think", he demonstrates to be open to other views, which I always appreciate seeing.

Is negative the assumption that I meant to say; "if I had an original object and split it into two" since I did not start from the original object, but a part of it.

In the second part, my opponent demonstrates the same mistake as my last opponent* did, he thinks adding objects is a plausible way to show my statement false, but we all know that adding and dividing are two different things (but I would be open to see him trying to demonstrate otherwise), I showed that error to my last opponent*, using his* own argument.

Sources:
*
http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

If I cut you in half, I do not have half of you anymore. I have two separate arrangements of atoms.

It is like saying if you fill half of a hole you have half a hole. It is a whole hole xD because there is no set form of a hole. I the same way there is not one 'object' in the universe. Everything is an object. The entire universe is an object. I don't at all understand how one can ever have half of an object.

You say a whole object exists. The universe is a whole object, so technically anything is just a millionth (far less than a half) of the object that is the universe. I don't need such ridiculous proof that 1 =/= 1 as the theory that there is half an object.

Thank you, good bye.

1=1
Cometflash

Con

I'm sorry PRO, but I feel you are really not engaging in this conversation.

What makes me think this, is that you reply really quickly, and seem to make a lot of mistakes in your reason, and again have yet to advance at anything that the true resolution is about.

PRO wrote;
"If I cut you in half, I do not have half of you anymore. I have two separate arrangements of atoms."

This seems very rushed put together. Notice the word "anymore". By using the word "anymore" in the sentence, you are implying that you once had "half of me". That contradicts with the statement that follows, and contradict with your premise that you had on the previous round.

If you cut me in half, you have two halves of what I once were (me).

You are focusing to much in my use of "object" and therefore you are making this debate about such. If we go by what you are saying, is like saying there is no such of thing as a fraction. Since every time you cut an object, you now have two objects or more, therefore 1/2 cannot possibly exist. That could be a good debate. However, this is not the debate.

PRO wrote;
"It is like saying [b]if you fill half of a hole you have half a hole[b]. It is a whole hole xD because there is no set form of a hole. I the same way there is not one 'object' in the universe. Everything is an object. The entire universe is an object. I don't at all understand how one can ever have half of an object."

Did you see what happened there? That analogy accepts that a half of a hole exists, but yet your following argument denies such from existing. Plus that analogy can't possibly work. If I have a hole and I fill the hole, a hole does not longer exists because the hole have been filled.

Another demonstration that rushing into conclusion is not a good thing.

PRO wrote;
"You say a whole object exists. The universe is a whole object, so technically anything is just a millionth (far less than a half) of the object that is the universe. I don't need such ridiculous proof that 1 =/= 1 as the theory that there is half an object."

This demonstrates that not only did you rush to reply, but you did not really read what I wrote. As I cover this in my previous round.

My quote;
"So really, when I used "half of an object" I was simply stating that the object was an object that was acquire by a previously "whole" object.
Even know my opponent did not complain about my use of the word "whole", I guess to make more clear to everyone, I should use "whole" in quotation as well, from now on."*

As you can see, I had already foreseeing your complaining about the use of "whole". :)

PRO wrote;

"Thank you, good bye"

"1=1"

I hope this doesn't mean you will forfeit the rest of the rounds.

Also, as our agreement stands, the resolution was changed, so you are not here to prove that 1=1, but 1 always equal 1. Either that, or to find a flaw that disproves my argument.

I have yet to see you do either so far.

I would like to ask you to revise what you present in the next round. I like to believe you are still up for the debate, and there are other reasons you rushed to reply. Your second round was a good start, but in your third round it seems you gave up, and didn't even try.

Source:
*
Second round of this very page.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

I usually am a rather passive, by-the-book debater. I usually stick to rebuttals and reinforcement of previous points raised and always put my best effort to maintain conduct. However...This is one of the few times I have become so infuriated at the idiocy and ignorance of my opponent that I must sacrifice the conduct vote for the sake of the arguments' one.

Let me tell you something straight: you are incapable of grasping logic at all, or at least you have shown no capability of it this entire debate.

If you fill half a hole. You are left with half the original hole. Nonetheless you now have ONE hole that is half the size of the original hole.

If you cut an object in half, you have to objects half the size of the original object. If you are too retarded to understand that this is 100% correct, then I CANNOT EXPLAIN IT ANY BETTER TO YOU OKAY?!

1=1 because one is the same as one. It is as bloody simple as that. Thank you very f*cking much.
Cometflash

Con

PRO, I'm very sorry that I'm causing you such of distress.

I think by looking at my argument as an absurdity (which I understand), is causing you too much stress and that may be impairing you to debate this topic.

What you wrote is also very unclear, if you were to consider your conclusion, of which I have agreed upon at many times (which you still think I disagreed).

Look at this quote, by you;

"If you fill half a hole. You are left with half the original hole. Nonetheless you now have ONE hole that is half the size of the original hole."

First part of this paragraph suggests you only have a "half of a hole", unless you mean "if you fill half of a hole", which your conclusion suggests is what you meant.
So we have a contradictory statement.

I'll try to see this in all different ways and explain.

If you have just "half of a hole" (which is a hole on their own), and you fill that half, you no longer have a hole.

If you have a hole, and you fill half of that hole, you are left with a hole that is 1/2 of the size of the original hole. The problem here, is that you are thinking of the original hole. However, when you have 1/2 / 1/2 the original hole is not in the mathematical equation. Just the half of the parameter you once had, is taken into account.
So if that statement has an of between "half" and "a", I agreed with your statement.
If you have a hole, and you fill half of it, you now have a hole that is half of the size of the original hole that you filled, you still have a hole, just not a hole with the same diameter than the original hole.

Now here comes the tricky part of your assumption. You are assuming because you still have a hole, this means you have one hole. Which leads to what I told you before, thinking like this, fractions are not possible.

Demonstration.
a hole= one hole.

I have one hole, I fill half of it, I still have a hole, so I have one hole. I have one hole, I fill half of it, I still have a hole, so I have one hole...

Here you have 1 always equal to 1, infinitely. Maybe this is what you were trying to do from the beginning, in order to prove that 1 always equals 1?!

However, you will end up in a contradiction. That shows fraction is impossible, but you are using fraction to show that.

So "a hole" is not the same as "1 hole", unless is your beginning point, and you are representing a hole with the number 1.

I hope I was clear, and I hope you can clarify on your own exactly what your paragraph meant.

This is not exactly what I hoped for since I want to debate my original point. However, this is being a very interesting conversation to me. Too bad you cannot feel the same way.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

What is this bullsh*t about 'of'

You msut realise that if you fill half OF a hole you are left with ONE hole half the SIZE of the original hole but with ONE WHOLE F*cking HOLE in itself!

Dude listen; ONE IS ONE because ONE IS ONE because ONE IS ONE yes OBVIOUSLY this is infinitely true but this doesn't make fractions impossible?!

1=1 BECAUSE (1/2)=(1/2) What YOU are saying is that because (1/2)=/=1 that 1=/=1 sometimes what a nonsense?!
Cometflash

Con

If we substitute the word hole with the word circle, this is what we get:

PRO quote, replacing the word "hole" with the word "circle".

"You msut realise that if you fill half OF a circle you are left with ONE circle half the SIZE of the original circle but with ONE WHOLE F*cking CIRCLE in itself!"

As we can see, following PRO reason, 1 cannot represent different things.

If you have a circle and you cut that circle in half, you have a semicircle, and not another circle.

I warn my opponent that using hole for an analogy was not going to work from the beginning, but he insisted in doing so.

I'm very sad to see my opponent in this state. I'm really sorry you feel this way RationalMadman.

Take care!
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
Apologies to Pro. I accidentally voted arguments to Con when Pro clearly won the arguments. I have fixed my error.
Posted by RationalMadman 1 year ago
RationalMadman
ineversmile it was my contender who earlier posted this an won with the con side. I was so shocked he defeated someone who said '1=1' I thought I could beat him.
Posted by ineversmile 1 year ago
ineversmile
I don't know why you propose this debate, there's no debate here. That 1 is equivalent to 1 is analytical a priori, it doesn't need any proof. It is true by definition, if you understand what 1 and equality (or equivalence) are.
Posted by RationalMadman 1 year ago
RationalMadman
Exactly my point.
Posted by Pyyrate 1 year ago
Pyyrate
Ok, what is an object? What makes an object, an object?
Posted by RationalMadman 1 year ago
RationalMadman
Halves exist, half an object is a ridiculous concept.
Posted by Pyyrate 1 year ago
Pyyrate
Quoted from round 2: "The issue with your 'object' argument is there's not such thing as half an object. You would just have two objects, not two halves."

....If that's not saying halves don't exist, I don't know what is.
Posted by RationalMadman 1 year ago
RationalMadman
I never siad halves don't exist.
Posted by RationalMadman 1 year ago
RationalMadman
I never said halves don't exist.
Posted by RationalMadman 1 year ago
RationalMadman
I never said halves don't exist.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
RationalMadmanCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's concerns are with how objects correspond to mathematical symbols. 1 is a mathematical symbol and nothing else. Identity is a mathematical property of the symbol and is always true. Pro's conduct was poor, but good grief, nothing can overcome the arguments.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 1 year ago
GorefordMaximillion
RationalMadmanCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 1 year ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RationalMadmanCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Not sure who won, but Pro raged against Con in such a fashion that I am forced to deduct conduct.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 1 year ago
Ron-Paul
RationalMadmanCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Stop capitalizing all the letters in a word or sentence, RationalMadman. I will keep deducting conduct.