4 Math is greater than 1 Math
Debate Round Forfeited
HeavenlyPanda has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style:  Open with Elo Restrictions  Point System:  Select Winner  
Started:  7/13/2016  Category:  Education  
Updated:  1 year ago  Status:  Debating Period  
Viewed:  1,022 times  Debate No:  93694 
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)
This is an extract from a theory I'm in the process of writing, and I would like to debate for the logic I've outlined.
Submission Theory In this document, I, the author, have written 'the submission theory'; a conspiracy theory, but also a scientific and philosophical theory. The document will be split into partitions with numerous chapters in each partition. Introduction Humanity has been forced into submission by false academia and Governments, to varying degrees. Some aspects of ourselves are at liberty, but some other aspects are not. The submission theory is an analysis of the submission of mankind to academia and Governments. The Science of 'The Submission Theory'. Mathematics Humans have been educated an incorrect numeric system and therefore conduct false mathematics. The number 1 is symbolic of a single point; of which, are nonexistent. "I have one apple". The 'one' apple that was claimed is not a single point, and therefore is not 'one' apple. The apple Is above 1. A further analysis of the falsity of 'one apple', proof that the apple is not a single point... The apple isn't void of other existence, there is always that which is external to it, otherwise the apple wouldn't exist. The apple can be sensed from a number of angles dependant on the observer. The apple had come from an apple tree, it has it's own lineage. To conclude the 'one apple example'; proof that the apple is not a single point has been presented, and the apple is above 1. The proper apple, is of the numeric value 4, void of the number 1, and following is an explanation... A square has 4 corners, there is no 1 corner in a square " to claim 1 corner is to reduce a square to 1 corner of a square. A square has a face, equal to it's corners. The face of a square equals 4. The symbol of "4", in it's current state, is equal to 1. Therefore, we cannot understand 4, because we use false symbols. We were educated to work with the number 1, and this education does not allow us to understand a number 4 that's void of the number 1. What you may refer to as 'one apple', is truthfully of the number 4. It may be difficult for most humans to understand, for they are influenced by the numeric value 1. The apple of the numeric value 4, described in the square example, has four extremes; to perceive the apple's side completely requires four angles of perception. It requires four angles of perception to perceive the top and bottom, or 'polar', of the apple. The apple's polar are two sets of four extremes. The side of the apple is extended to the polar. The polar sets are perceived by two full tilts relative to a neutral side perception, or rotation around a semitilt through the neutral side set. A single, or hybrid set, can be perceived at a time. At any given time a face set is perceived, composed of polar and side. In other words, an angle of perception is perception of a full set. Face sets, side sets, polar sets and hybrid sets, all equate 4. Again, 4 that's void of 1. The apple itself is cubic, a cube composed of a complex of the numeric value 4. The polar, side, face and hybrid sets together form a cube and not a square. To be continued.
Your theory is flawed and the numbers are wrong. You are basically saying that a sphere has more than one side. I will prove that your numbers are wrong by saying that it should actually be 1 is equal to 10. I will elaborate on that Theory. Good luck. 

I guess you were just agreeing to debate.
Please consider more of the evidence of logic outlined in the original post, please present this proof.
By my opponents theory a sphere actually has four faces. That is because of the different points at which you look at it equal to four. The four that my opponent has come up with is made up of ones. Therefore by my opponents logic, having one sphere is actually more than one. My opponents theory is flawed because we all know how many faces a dice has. Six. Whereas here my opponent claims that a sphere only has four. But a sphere is technically a round square and a sphere should have six faces if my opponents logic on perception is counted. Therefore I have proven that my opponents theory is flawed. Then my opponent claims that since his theory is right saying "I have one sphere" is actually like saying he has more than one sphere. That is not true. Although the faces of a sphere by my opponents logic should be six, that does not mean you have more spheres. Have means that you possess something. And object that is tangible and real. Therefore you cannot have more than one sphere if all you have is one sphere. You can have more faces than one on a sphere but saying you have one sphere is does not mean you have two spheres. Now I shall preposes that 1 is equal to 10. 1 has the quantity of one. 0 has the quantity of zero. Therefore put together there is only two ones on either side of the equation. The quantity on either side is one considering that the quantity of zero is nothing. That was through an equation. Now I shall prove it though exponents. 1 is still the quantity of one. Therefore 10 to the power of zero is equal to one. I have proved that 1 is equal to 10. 

The greater 4 math encompasses all of the good aspects of any lesser math, therefore, when you stick up for current math because it's good for people, your argument is void. A greater math that tells not only of use but of method; of discipline and virtuosity; of memory and of imagination, and all of the human psyche.
Sense is superior to knowledge, but resolve is superior to sense, which is a combination of knowledge and experience. Knowledge is understanding of 4 mathematics, sense is our true ego, and resolve is a hybrid. The sky had allowed the three, and the four create one set. When you claim our sensory ability is lesser than evidence it's false. There are 4 sides and 2 polar relative to a neutral side perception {i.e. if you're looking at the face of a cube, a distinct top and bottom are observed}. The fact that they look the same doesn't mean that they are the same, it's the sense of it that has this effect; and it is worthy. Metaphors such as, the mind is like a more advanced star, and the heart a more advanced Earth " are true. Eyes are part of a stars and planets family, the light of stars give the effect of perception " humans are more advanced than stars and planets, their perceptions are the light, but to some degree are beyond it. Your perceptive ability evolved because it was heavily influence by light.
My opponent has not disproved my theory of 1 is equal to 10. Therefore it still stands. Then my opponent tried to say that actually a cube has six faces instead of four. But my opponents logic before stated that a sphere has only four faces. Like I said before a sphere is a circular square. And if by that logic then a cube would have four faces is what my opponent said before. But we all know that a cube has six faces. By my opponents logic I have one dollar. Technically since it is a 3D shape it can be perceived at different angles. Therefore it, by my opponents logic is actually four dollars. Now I will try and by a four dollar drink with my dollar. It will not work. Therefore the theory does not work. Then my opponent says that senses are more absolute than fact. So say that I sense with my ears that Taylor Swift music is being played on a gramophone when it is actually Adele. You see here that senses can be wrong whereas facts are not wrong because facts have already been proven to be right. The my opponent says that metaphors like a mind is like a star are true. Technically that isn't a metaphor it would be simile. I too could say that the mind is like a data chip and the heart is a battery. 

To conclude this chapter, spheres are cubic. We require 4 sets of 4 angles to sense a sphere's complete side and polar. Hybrid side and polar angles, and face angles of side and polar, are of the numeric value 4. A 4 void of number 1. We can rotate or tilt a sphere, seemingly sensing it from innumerable angles. Rotation and tilt occur from neutral face angles, and are transitions, to side or polar, meaning that there are 4 sets of 4, not innumerable angles, that can be fathomed with 4 mathematics.
A cube has a polar, or top and bottom, and a side (front and back; left and right). This is simple. Relative to our perception there are four what I claim to be side, and two of what I claim to be polar. You abstract tilt with rotation, or vice versa, and make neutral the complexoppositeprocess of side and polar (the logic makes the claim). One side is a side for there are three other similar  one polar has only one other similar, that which is opposite to it. The twopolar sector and, and fourside sector, represent 'pole' and 'rotate' logic; polar sector is less significant, side sector is more significant. The simplest format of polar is a pole and of side is a equator. The pole and equator are in harmony in this universe, they are cubicopposite as I explained prior. To achieve harmony the equator rotates around the pole,a process of opposite ends of rotation, masculine and feminine. The rest of your arguments are mere puns and do express logic as cleanly as cubic logic. Senses are more absolute than evidence; as a commenter mentioned in the comments, we can disagree or agree with evidence {i.e. we are above it if we want to be}. Sense is above knowledge, that is saying, knowledge is below sense; that doesn't mean sense is without knowledge. It is our advancement from the past to our current self. You must sense evidence before you can know it, it cannot be presented to you if you have no sense. When you see evidence, you have the choice to accept it or deny it. Intelligence is the functionality of choosing correctly., we are intelligent if we work with the numeric value 4, correct mathematics that surpasses incorrect mathematics. We are unintelligent to work with the numeric value 1, since all of 1 mathematics is encompassed in 4 mathematics, plus more. Sense is above evidence for 4 mathematics is true mathematics. We are evolutionary, we have evolved from, inter alia, stars  we can find evidence for stars; however, our species is above the stars. The pressures of the universe shaped us, we became beings from what had come, and stars came prior to humans. In this universe, our minds are above stars, but related and opposite. This round has not been posted yet. 

This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. 
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.
puke, on the wall, infensifying..
You are this shape! You are cubic, this is how you're perceived. Your beauty.
The difference of intelligences is a matter of pure understanding, as light as a feather, as worthy as the eagle.
"To conclude this chapter"  wit at it's finest.
You have enforced a sexual fantasy with word.
You have not disproven cubic logic, and your dismissal is based on prior knowledge that if you presented would easily be contradicted.
You don't present this knowledge? Then what you refer to with your post is yourself, your feelings and your, what is to be considered, fantasy. We are forced to submit to your fantasy argument for 1 mathematics  in time we will appear no different, making nonsensical comments like you, unless we resist.
People laughing, people insulting, people misbehaving; all of this is a product of the accepted perverse behaviour when considering the abstract.
You now, are no different from a criminal! And no, I do not like it.