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

# One + one = Three.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
vi_spex
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 11/19/2015 Category: Miscellaneous Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 82802
Debate Rounds (3)

 Pro Pro contends that 1+1=3.Report this Argument Con 1+1+1=3 yeaReport this Argument Pro What is the number one? The number one is a symbol. Similar to abc. Yet, not every nation uses the same symbols. "Name European (Hindu-Arabic) Roman Western Arabic-Indic Hebrew zero 0 ٠ one 1 I ١ א two 2 II ٢ ב" [1]. Since there is no universal symbol denoting the number one its safe to state that there is no correct sequence for numbers. That 1,2,3,4,5,6. Is just as valid as 1,3,2,4,5,6. Therefore, its only logical that 1+1 = 3 since 3 is the number after one. Links 1. http://www.rapidtables.com...Report this Argument Con 1=everything=something 1 apple and 1 more apple is never 3 apples, which expains all valuesReport this Argument Pro 1 is a symbol. 1 could mean anything. It could mean a or A or ^ or ( or . apple could just as easily be spelled qwwle. Numbers are a form of language. Just as there are already the English, French, Spanish, and so forth languages. New languages could emerge just as old languages like Latin is disappearing. Who are you to tell me my language is wrong and yours is correct? Just as Con contends for the language of numbers to go in this sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. Pro contends that numbers would work just as well with the following language 1,3,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,12,14,15. Since number 3 is between 1 and 2 it is clear that 1+1 = 3 and not 2. Just as 2-1 = 3. 10/5 = 3. Vote Pro.Report this Argument Con if, 1=g.. then g=1 an apple is not a wordReport this Argument
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro could not fill the BOP, and for once, Con made an good argument of 1+1 can never be 3 because it is 2 whole numbers.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter unreasonably characterizes an assertion made by Con in R2 as an argument, not to mention one that has to do with whole numbers (a term which Con never uses). (2) The voter needs to explain why Pro couldn't fulfill the BoP with his arguments, and not just address Con's.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
hm, 1+2=3
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
2 is as much 3, as 1
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
2 defines 1
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
The proof for why 1+1=2 starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
Posted by 6ix 1 year ago
Am I the only one that finds this debate hysterical?
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
Vi is correct here. 1+1+1=3, good luck refuting a simple, known fact.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
Siding with Mr. Vi here. 1+1+1=3 is a fact.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.