All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

# I'm going to win. 2+2=4

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Chimera
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 7/30/2014 Category: Politics Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 59771
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 Pro 2+2=4. This is supported by people and calculators all over the world. And 2 dogs plus 2 dogs equals 4 dogs.Report this Argument Con My opponent's basis is that 2+2=4 in any given system. This is not the case. To show this, I will use a watch as my example.Say that I left work at 7 o'clock am. Then, I come home at 5 o'clock pm.Now, in military time, 5 pm can be changed to 17 o'clock. However, clocks operate in a system known as modular arithmetic. The system that clocks use is known as 'Modulo 12'.What modular arithmetic does, is that it wraps numbers around a circle (like a clock) until they reach a certain value. Once this highest possible value is reached, numbers repeat themselves from the starting value. In the case of clocks, this value is 12, hence 'Modulo 12'.So, when doing arithmetic with a 'Modulo 12' system, we can see that standard arithmetic no longer applies.For example, since 12pm is noon, and 5pm is 5 hours from noon, the equation for this circumstance using modular arithmetic would be:12+5=5 (since 5 would be equal to 17 o'clock)We could further move on to say that in a 'Modulo 12' system, other equations could occur such as:14+3=5 (since 14 o'clock would be 2pm, and adding three hours to 2pm would make the time 5pm)13+9=10 (since 13 o'clock would be 1pm, and adding nine hours to 1pm would make the time 10pm)We could also switch this to start from am time:7+6=1 (7+6 usually would equal 13, but 12 is the highest possibility, so the number 1 space ahead of the highest possibility would be the Modulo 12 value).11+5=4 (11+5 usually would equal 16, but 12 is the highest possibility, so Now, I will apply 2+2 into a system of modular arithmetic. For this, I will begin with a Modulo 2 system that uses the numbers 0 and 1.2+2=? (We know that the beginning '2' value would be a '1', so we must move 2 spaces ahead of '1').1+1=0 (1st space), 0+1=1 (2nd space).Thus, 2+2=1.Next, a Modulo 3 system with the numbers 0, 1, and 2.2+2=? (We know that the beginning '2' value would be a '1', so we must move 2 spaces ahead of '1').1+1=2 (1st space), 2+1=0 (2nd space).Thus, 2+2=0.Finally, I will use a Modulo 4 system, that includes the numbers 0, 1, 2, and 3.2+2=? (We know that the beginning '2' value would be a '1', so we must move 2 spaces ahead of '1').1+1=2 (1st space), 2+1=3 (2nd space).Thus, 2+2=3.In conclusion, the variable '?' in the equation '2+2=?' will not always equal 4, since different systems of modular arithmetic might be employed. Report this Argument Pro Korov007 forfeited this round. Con Now, I will move onto the second part of my opponent's resolution. That being, that my opponent will win this debate. This is erroneous and unlikely for several reasons.1: My opponent has not provided a counter argument, thus meaning their BoP has yet to be fulfilled.2: My opponent has forfeited a round of this debate.3: My opponent cannot mathematically refute modular arithmetic, since it is a proven mathematical concept4: My opponent cannot know if they will win, thus their resolution is inherently flawed.5: A victory for my opponent is hinged upon the equation 2+2 always equaling 4, which I have proven through mathematics as false.Conclusion: My opponent will not win this debate. If my opponent does not fulfill their BoP in the final round, or if my opponent forfeits (either by inaction or by stating so) they will lose this debate. Unless Pro proves that modular arithmetic doesn't exist ,which is refuted due to the existence of clocks and calendars, then my opponent cannot fulfill their BoP. Thus, my opponent will lose this debate.Report this Argument Pro Korov007 forfeited this round. Con My opponent forfeited, without providing a single counter-argument. Thus, Pro has lost this debate, due to failing to meet their burden of proof.Vote Con. Report this Argument
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Small reminder, pro needs not only to support the number system, but also that he is going to win. It is a two part resolution (I always suggest avoiding those).
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
I think that pro might need some aloe after that round one response.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
wow pro was epicly trolled
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Depends on what the numbers represent. Given the dogs, without adding other factors, suddenly there's less dogs and the remaining ones living another day. With the other factors none die, but suddenly there's also puppies.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
© 2017 Debate.org. All rights reserved.