One + one = Three.
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:  2 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  590 times  Debate No:  82802 
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)
Pro contends that 1+1=3.


What is the number one? The number one is a symbol. Similar to abc. Yet, not every nation uses the same symbols.
"Name European (HinduArabic) Roman Western ArabicIndic 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...
1=everything=something 1 apple and 1 more apple is never 3 apples, which expains all values 

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 21 = 3. 10/5 = 3. Vote Pro. 
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 2 years ago
Stupidape  vi_spex  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 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 2 years ago
Stupidape  vi_spex  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 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.
>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.
************************************************************************
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.