The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

One + one = Three.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 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: 516 times Debate No: 82802
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Pro contends that 1+1=3.
vi_spex

Con

1+1+1=3

yea
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

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...
vi_spex

Con

1=everything=something

1 apple and 1 more apple is never 3 apples, which expains all values
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

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.
vi_spex

Con

if, 1=g.. then g=1

an apple is not a word
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>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
vi_spex
hm, 1+2=3
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
2 is as much 3, as 1
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
2 defines 1
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
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
definition of addition to this:
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
6ix
Am I the only one that finds this debate hysterical?
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
Vi is correct here. 1+1+1=3, good luck refuting a simple, known fact.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
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.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Stupidapevi_spexTied
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 had the BOP and it just wasn't fulfilled. They made up an imaginary way of counting. They never showed that it belonged to a legitimate system and therefore it is preferable that I follow the fact that Con is actually using the numbers of the English language (ie. 12345 etc). Making up a language without showing me why I should believe or follow that language is insufficient since it does not tell me why I should believe otherwise. Con did not need to show me why his language was preferable because his language was legitimate whilst Pro's was not. Con provided the simple analogy that 1+1+1=3 which wasn't well backed up or explained however Pro conceded to this and said that this was only coinciding with Con's language not his. Since I am not overly persuaded by either side I would vote tie / neutral. I do not do this though, since Pro has the BOP so a neutral vote must go in Con's favor since he does not carry any burden to prove.
Vote Placed by rross 1 year ago
rross
Stupidapevi_spexTied
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: Pro had the bop to show that 1 + 1 = 3 and I found his argument unconvincing. If he intended the symbols of the equation to be understood other than in the conventional way he should have defined them in the first round. Otherwise, his argument that any meaning could be assigned to them seemed facile, and undermined the basis of the debate.