The Instigator
themasteroffail
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

"1+1" equals 3

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 12 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,034 times Debate No: 18942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (12)

 

themasteroffail

Pro

Ru prepared
thett3

Con

1 is defined as: is a number, a numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number. It represents a single entity, the unit of countingor measurement.

thus, 1 + 1 equals 2. Not three.
Debate Round No. 1
themasteroffail

Pro

you are correct; 1+1 = 2. But "1+1" is not necessarily equal to 2 because I can assign any numerical value to "1" and to "1." "+" does not necessarily mean that one is to add the integers. In a retend language, "+" can be the symbol for subtraction, for instance.
thett3

Con

I already defined 1, my opponent did not dispute the definition so his argument that "1" could mean anything falls. My Opponent argues that "+" could mean anything. I have three responses.

1. It's generally accepated that + means addition.
2. There is nothing you can do to a pair of "1"s as I defined it to make them equal to three.
3. My Opponent has not aruged how 1+1 is 3.

I win.
Debate Round No. 2
themasteroffail

Pro

I will define "1" as 1.5. Since I posted "1+1" equals 3 in the first place, my definitions of "1" and "+" are the only significant definitions. I will give the universal definition + to my symbol "+"

The opponent is trying to infringe universal definitions onto my symbols, they are my symbols and I proposed them. Again, "1" is the symbol for what we know as 1.5. 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.
thett3

Con

It is too late to define "1", I already did and my opponent dropped it, thus conceding to my definition. You can't vote pro because he's:

1. Trying to spring a silly semantic argument
2. Has already coceded to my definition.

So you have to vote con.

Heres another quote from he source of where I defined 1 (y opponent has conceded to this remember)

http://en.wikipedia.org...(number)

"

One, sometimes referred to as unity, is the integer before two and after zero. One is the first non-zero number in the natural numbers as well as the first odd number in the natural numbers.

Any number multiplied by one is the number, as one is the identity for multiplication. As a result, one is its own factorial, its own square, its own cube, and so on. One is also the empty product, as any number multiplied by one is itself, which produces the same result as multiplying by no numbers at all.


That's preferable to my opponent just coming up with his own.


Debate Round No. 3
themasteroffail

Pro

Although I didn't tell you my definition of "1," I wrote the statement, ""1+1" equals 3."

Who are you to tell me what my definition of "1" is? Perhaps for you, "1+1" equals 3. You cannot tell me that I did not define "1" so that you can have your way. Obviously I had to have defined "1" as 1.5 for it to equal to the value of three, or my argument would have been false.

Yes, I couldv'e posted a false argument, but why would I defend it?

Nevertheless, what is important is that I wrote the argument and can define "1" whenever I want because the argument belongs to me. "1" is mine.
thett3

Con

My Opponent tries to argue that I can;t tell him what HIS definition of "1" is. Sadly, I did and he ignored my definion, thus conceding to it. He hasn't even responded to this, so vote con just on that.

Vote con because math is objective, and 1+1=2.

Vote Con because if a word is in quotations that does not change its definition. If I say Obama is the "president", or Obama is the President, the definition of the words involved are still the same.

My Opponent aslo contradicts himself. Check out these quotes:

"Obviously I had to have defined "1" as 1.5" and ". In a retend language, "+" can be the symbol for subtraction, for instance." So possibly even with Pros definition the answer is not 3, but 0.

Theres no other way to vote except Con on this.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by darris321 2 years ago
darris321
I was with con until he/she said
"Vote Con because if a word is in quotations that does not change its definition. If I say Obama is the "president", or Obama is the President, the definition of the words involved are still the same."

I think it seemed pretty obvious that the instigator wasn't suggesting that the quotations gave it a new definition. I think he was defining the string as defined by the glyph "1". So his string "1" evokes "1.5".

However, the con did provide a definition and the pro just tried to pussyfoot around it. The con provided a definition that the pro did not disapprove of- this means the pro accepted the definition of "1" and "1.5" is another definition.

Also, 1+1=3 is a universal statement. If you define your own 1 to equal 1.5, we cannot assume that you made a new glyph for the actual 1. This means that 1=1.5 AND 1=1. Since 3 is made up of 3 "1"s, then 1+1= 2 and 4.5.
Unless you redefine 3, also, but the pro did not- if I could vote, I would put them towards con.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
themasteroffailthett3Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to pull a bad semantics win, but saying that he could define "1" however he pleases. In semantics, you still have to work with known definitions of words and symbols, you just use known definitions that are less common. You can't simply change them to whatever you want, especially, not in R3.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 2 years ago
GaryBacon
themasteroffailthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con definitely won this debate. Pro would've done a lot better if he used more science and math (e.g. significant digits). 1.4 to one significant digit is 1. Using that basis, the sum is 2.8, which to one significant digit is 3.
Vote Placed by tjordan 2 years ago
tjordan
themasteroffailthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ........
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
themasteroffailthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tries to assign a value of 1 plus 1= 3 with computer language whereas 1 plus 1 is a variable and that variable he defines is equal to 3. He failed to argue that successfully, Con highlighted how in algebraic terms 1 plus 1 does equal 2, argument goes to Con
Vote Placed by Kethen 2 years ago
Kethen
themasteroffailthett3Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Technically Pro is write, but he didn't define it first or argue con's definition right away properly. So technically Pro is write but he needs to practice his arguing
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 2 years ago
jm_notguilty
themasteroffailthett3Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO conceded to CON's definitions.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
themasteroffailthett3Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that 1+1 actually equals 2, not 3. Pro had the burden of proof, which he could not meet since reality was not on his side.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
themasteroffailthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Themasteroffail, your name speaks for itself
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
themasteroffailthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an extraordinary claim which he just couldn't prove no matter how much he tried to.
Vote Placed by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
themasteroffailthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to redefine what the symbol meant without disputing the definition.