"1+1" equals 3
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
thett3
| Started: | 10/23/2011 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,248 times | Debate No: | 18942 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (12)
 Pro  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. |
 |
|
Pro 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. |
 |
|
Pro 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. 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. |
 |
|
Pro 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. 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. |
 |
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
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 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
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 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: ........
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 |
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 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 |
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 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: PRO conceded to CON's definitions.
Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
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 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Themasteroffail, your name speaks for itself
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 |
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 1 year ago
| themasteroffail | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to redefine what the symbol meant without disputing the definition.
"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.